Sam Jackson's reply

[Andrew Slater]

Free Thinking also went to R4, with some adjustments. It's on once a week: Friday, 9pm, one hour.

[AuntDaisy]

I'd forgotten The Verb. Yes, and it does indicate what is happening - a speech programmme's place is on R4. I was recently looking at a (hilarious - to me) interview Mark Damazer had with Roger Wright in about 2016 in which Damazer claimed that FoR3 wanted to get rid of all the jazz and world music which got in the way of the classical music, and that all the "speechy stuff" (double quotes, with flapping gesture of the hand) should be on R4. Roger - to his eternal credit - looked embarrassed and tried to stop the flow. But I thought he became a little vague when following up on his general demur. He made it sound a bit as if we weren't very clear ourselves what we were saying.

What a load of dribble. Was it ~2012 & St. Peters College? If so, then the MP3 is still available. FoR3 ~45:20 in.

R3 / Third has always had "speechy stuff" (double quotes, with flapping gesture of the hand & a huge groan) and decent drama / features producers / heads who encouraged (new) writers & experimentation - sadly now gone.

[oddoneout]

But could you you justify that opinion empirically? Is it just a matter of your subjective preference for one rather than the other? What is actually happening when Radio 2 offloads one (or two) of its programmes on Radio 3? Which service does Radio 3 offload its unwanted programmes on?

Probably not, and strictly speaking they weren't programmes that were offloaded as they didn't already exist, but they did use R3 as a dumping ground rather than make a slot where they arguably should have been aired, to avoid ructions with an audience that seemed to have more importance than the(existing) R3 one.

[AuntDaisy]

Free Thinking also went to R4, with some adjustments. It's on once a week: Friday, 9pm, one hour.

[french frank]

What a load of dribble. Was it ~2012 & St. Peters College? If so, then the MP3 is still available. FoR3 ~45:20 in.

Yes, 2012, not 2016, much commented on in these parts when it appeared online. The forum thread is still around . The actiual webcast is also available on St Peter's website so it can be viewed in all it's gory glory. Note Roger's facial expression in the bit I highlight.

https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/roger-wright-controller-proms-and-radio-3

At 43 minutes in they talk about Classic FM. What Roger said then was more true at that time than it is now, but it's easy to highlight the differences: what about the similarities? Relish the bit at just after 45 minutes in where the audience was warned NOT to join FoR3! I did write to Mark Damazer after I saw it to say everything he said about FoR3 was exactly the opposite of the case. He replied (I didn't expect him to), somewhat cursorily but acceptably - just. Again gratitude to Roger for his defence even if I might disagree as to whether we had 'one view' or not:

"Many thanks for your interesting and stimulating letter. I take your point - and perhaps I was a bit harsh. Roger is a treasure and I was perhaps too keen to make that point." [NB That's what we thought too]

R3 / Third has always had "speechy stuff" (double quotes, with flapping gesture of the hand & a huge groan) and decent drama / features producers / heads who encouraged (new) writers & experimentation - sadly now gone.

[AuntDaisy]

Yes, 2012, not 2016, much commented on in these parts when it appeared online. The forum thread is still around . The actiual webcast is also available on St Peter's website so it can be viewed in all it's gory glory. Note Roger's facial expression in the bit I highlight.

https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/roger-wright-controller-proms-and-radio-3

At 43 minutes in they talk about Classic FM. What Roger said then was more true at that time than it is now, but it's easy to highlight the differences: what about the similarities? Relish the bit at just after 45 minutes in where the audience was warned NOT to join FoR3! I did write to Mark Damazer after I saw it to say everything he said about FoR3 was exactly the opposite of the case. He replied (I didn't expect him to), somewhat cursorily but acceptably - just. Again gratitude to Roger for his defence even if I might disagree as to whether we had 'one view' or not:

"Many thanks for your interesting and stimulating letter. I take your point - and perhaps I was a bit harsh. Roger is a treasure and I was perhaps too keen to make that point." [NB That's what we thought too]

Thanks French Frank - a fascinating bit of history.
MD's restless / Uriah Heep / Black & White Minstrel hands also spoke volumes. Amazed at how well prepared &/or knowledgable RW was about his programming (& this concert).

[french frank]

Amazed at how well prepared &/or knowledgable RW was about his programming (& this concert).

As controller, Roger was a bit of a disappoinment because he was streets ahead of any other R3 controller in terms of knowledge, interest in the arts and qualifications. I just feel that they're all held back by a form of BBC 'mortmain', imposing on them what the station should achieve in the context of the entire BBC provision. In the higher echelons there has seldom been anyone who has actually valued the arts for themselves, rather than for the 'benefits'- to the economy, to general well-being etc. In other words, the arts are a means not an end.

We exchanged cordial handwritten letters when he left, acknowledging our disagreements but I do feel that, in recent times, the state of Radio 3 depended on the BBC's top brass; and times have changed since the days of Sir William Haley and the founding of the Third Programme. Controllers can leave a personal stamp but their hands are very much tied by the three Bs - Bureaucrats, Beancounters and Businessmen.

[LMcD]

As controller, Roger was a bit of a disappoinment because he was streets ahead of any other R3 controller in terms of knowledge, interest in the arts and qualifications. I just feel that they're all held back by a form of BBC 'mortmain', imposing on them what the station should achieve in the context of the entire BBC provision. In the higher echelons there has seldom been anyone who has actually valued the arts for themselves, rather than for the 'benefits'- to the economy, to general well-being etc. In other words, the arts are a means not an end.

We exchanged cordial handwritten letters when he left, acknowledging our disagreements but I do feel that, in recent times, the state of Radio 3 depended on the BBC's top brass; and times have changed since the days of Sir William Haley and the founding of the Third Programme. Controllers can leave a personal stamp but their hands are very much tied by the three Bs - Bureaucrats, Beancounters and Businessmen.

Perhaps Auntie had better be renamed the BBBC.

[eighthobstruction]

....I see on a recent BBC News indent Clive Myrie staring squarely into the camera with intent ejaculating "The fight for the truth is on"....well didn't someone once say "there was no there there"....or was it something to do with proof and pudding or stars; even.

[Serial_Apologist]

....I see on a recent BBC News indent Clive Myrie staring squarely into the camera with intent ejaculating "The fight for the truth is on"....well didn't someone once say "there was no there there"....or was it something to do with proof and pudding or stars; even.

There is an advert which is frequently shown across TV channels which at its start has people on, I think, a train, or possibly bus, reciting in unison: "It is what it is" as being "what people always say". Well I for one don't - any more than I concur with Caroline Frost's "Why does the relentless pursuit of wealth make for such compelling drama?" on Page 27 of the current Radio Times - when to me such dogmatic assertions, usually based on clichéd common assumptions, seem designed to dragoon everyone into subliminal groupthink for mass ideological conforming purposes. And while at it, for dominant/tonic resolution purposes, the rhetoric in the above-quoted ad has absolutely nowt to do with the rest of what the ad is promoting - which, meaningfully, I now forget.

[oddoneout]

There is an advert which is frequently shown across TV channels which at its start has people on, I think, a train, or possibly bus, reciting in unison: "It is what it is" as being "what people always say". Well I for one don't - any more than I concur with Caroline Frost's "Why does the relentless pursuit of wealth make for such compelling drama?" on Page 27 of the current Radio Times - when to me such dogmatic assertions, usually based on clichéd common assumptions, seem designed to dragoon everyone into subliminal groupthink for mass ideological conforming purposes. And while at it, for dominant/tonic resolution purposes, the rhetoric in the above-quoted ad has absolutely nowt to do with the rest of what the ad is promoting - which, meaningfully, I now forget.

I know the one you mean. I saw it several times before I could even work out what it was about but I too can't remember now!

[french frank]

Further points made by the controller, for information and comment:

In the last week, I’ve announced a new, forty-part series devoted to Modernist composers of the late 20^th century, inspired by the centenary of the birth of Pierre Boulez next year. Later this week, we will broadcast Gabriela Montero’s rarely heard Latin Concerto with the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra. And this coming weekend, the award-winning war reporter Janine di Giovanni joins Clive Myrie to recall the significance of Schumann’s Kinderszenen in her own life when reporting upon the plight of orphaned children in Sarajevo. These are just a few examples of what I would argue is exactly the kind of informed, serious and intelligent output which should always remain central to Radio 3. What’s more, the station is a broad church: there can and should be room for a variety of different broadcasters, formats and music within the panoply of what Radio 3 has to offer.

1 Excellent re the series on Modernists

2. On Gabriela Montero I know nothing, but I note that she follows in Mozart's footsteps, improvising to order (I forget the exact format he adopted, but it's somewhere in his letters).

3.The Janine di Giovanni programme may be veryinteresting but the 'what this music means to me' approach is not one that attracts me personally.

4. This may be 'informed, serious and intelligent output' but these are hardly the kind of programmes that are central to Radio 3 (unless perhaps they are timed to be on at midday?)

5.My reaction is that referring to Radio 3 as a 'broad church' is a) a cliché b) an assertion c) lacking any precise meaning as it applies to R3. We learn that R3 should be 'informed, serious and intelligent'; but what does 'a variety of different broadcasters' mean? To include people who aren't very informed (I decline to comment on seriousness and intelligence). One criticism is that there isn't a huge variety of formats - acres of R3 are presenter-led snippets. And the panoply of what R3 has to offer is precisely what I would like to see defined.

[oddoneout]

Further points made by the controller, for information and comment:

In the last week, I’ve announced a new, forty-part series devoted to Modernist composers of the late 20^th century, inspired by the centenary of the birth of Pierre Boulez next year. Later this week, we will broadcast Gabriela Montero’s rarely heard Latin Concerto with the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra. And this coming weekend, the award-winning war reporter Janine di Giovanni joins Clive Myrie to recall the significance of Schumann’s Kinderszenen in her own life when reporting upon the plight of orphaned children in Sarajevo. These are just a few examples of what I would argue is exactly the kind of informed, serious and intelligent output which should always remain central to Radio 3. What’s more, the station is a broad church: there can and should be room for a variety of different broadcasters, formats and music within the panoply of what Radio 3 has to offer.

1 Excellent re the series on Modernists

2. On Gabriela Montero I know nothing, but I note that she follows in Mozart's footsteps, improvising to order (I forget the exact format he adopted, but it's somewhere in his letters).

3.The Janine di Giovanni programme may be veryinteresting but the 'what this music means to me' approach is not one that attracts me personally.

4. This may be 'informed, serious and intelligent output' but these are hardly the kind of programmes that are central to Radio 3 (unless perhaps they are timed to be on at midday?)

5.My reaction is that referring to Radio 3 as a 'broad church' is a) a cliché b) an assertion c) lacking any precise meaning as it applies to R3. We learn that R3 should be 'informed, serious and intelligent'; but what does 'a variety of different broadcasters' mean? To include people who aren't very informed (I decline to comment on seriousness and intelligence). One criticism is that there isn't a huge variety of formats - acres of R3 are presenter-led snippets. And the panoply of what R3 has to offer is precisely what I would like to see defined.

I regret to say my immediate reaction to his list was "He stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum". The 40 part series OK, that's what one expects of R3 - although I do hope that consideration will be given to providing plenty of alternatives to that particular type of music elsewhere in the schedules - perhaps from a few centuries earlier...
However of the other 2 items the "rarely heard Latin Concerto" is one of the things that R3 should be doing anyway, and the one off(I assume) interview with music is just that.
It's what the pudding consists of that I am concerned about, not the occasional plum.

[oddoneout]

How times change. I was checking on something else and came across this from Wiki.
" Curran[DG in 70s] had earlier dismissed any suggestion that Radio 3's small audience was a consideration: "What is decisive is whether there is a worthwhile audience, and I mean by worthwhile an audience which will get an enormous satisfaction out of it." "

[eighthobstruction]

<<<"In the last week, I’ve announced a new, forty-part series devoted to Modernist composers of the late 20^th century, inspired by the centenary of the birth of Pierre Boulez next year. Later this week, we will broadcast Gabriela Montero’s rarely heard Latin Concerto with the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra. And this coming weekend, the award-winning war reporter Janine di Giovanni joins Clive Myrie to recall the significance of Schumann’s Kinderszenen in her own life when reporting upon the plight of orphaned children in Sarajevo. These are just a few examples of what I would argue is exactly the kind of informed, serious and intelligent output which should always remain central to Radio 3. What’s more, the station is a broad church: there can and should be room for a variety of different broadcasters, formats and music within the panoply of what Radio 3 has to offer.">>>

....of course it bloody should be....that's your job mate...