Latest RAJARs

[oddoneout]

I'm not bothering to post a recent article to which my attention was drawn, but in brief we are reactionary die-hards who can't abide change, and as far as Radio 3 is concerned we all have a different opinion of what Radio 3 should broadcast (probably just the things we like and not the things we don't like). And if ever there was a reactionary die-hard, ill-informed opinion that's probably it. It's been expressed for decades, though it's not clear what basis these assertions have in reality.

All your points well-made, odders, but R3 does need better funding because some things cost more than other things. A hard-back is more expensive than a paperback.

Yes I wasn't denying that there is a funding issue of the kind you mention, but I'm afraid I've spent too long in places where more money is seen as the answer without any consideration of why existing money is insufficient let alone what should be done to fix the hole in the bucket before just pouring more in. Would more funding stop the decline in R3 programmes which until recently were functioning well for the existing audience, or is that the result of management tickbox and target driven thinking - in which case I don't see that more money would solve it.

[french frank]

Would more funding stop the decline in R3 programmes which until recently were functioning well for the existing audience,

It would depend how it was spent. And what X thought would halt the decline, supposing X accepted that there was a decline.

or is that the result of management tickbox and target driven thinking - in which case I don't see that more money would solve it.

I've always said Radio 3 suffered from the BBC's 'one size fits all' thinking. They come up with certain boxes to be ticked, and all services must tick those same boxes; especially contribute towards the maintenance of the BBC's reach. And make a point of targeting younger listeners. For a start.

[Quarky]

I think a more immediate requirement would be application of informed intelligence.The erosion of TTN, fiddling about with EMS and BAL, and now the mess that AC is becoming are not as far as I can see the result of lack of funding.

Yes, if there were a possibility of extra cash, Radio 3 would have to put forward a plan or arguments to show that the money would be well spent.

[Hitch]

A proposal for the Radio 3 schedule: reserve a segment or a show each day for music from five different time periods. Start on Monday with the Early Music Show and proceed through the Baroque, Classical, Romantic and 20th Century/Contemporary eras during the rest of the week. R3 needn't coat everything with the same colour of paint as it did during the Beethoven week, etc., but reserve just an hour or two a day to see if the audience likes it. That shouldn't stretch the budget. The public, and certainly classical music aficionados, would quickly grasp the concept of R3 moving forward through classical music's history as the week progresses.

[Serial_Apologist]

A proposal for the Radio 3 schedule: reserve a segment or a show each day for music from five different time periods. Start on Monday with the Early Music Show and proceed through the Baroque, Classical, Romantic and 20th Century/Contemporary eras during the rest of the week. R3 needn't coat everything with the same colour of paint as it did during the Beethoven week, etc., but reserve just an hour or two a day to see if the audience likes it. That shouldn't stretch the budget. The public, and certainly classical music aficionados, would quickly grasp the concept of R3 moving forward through classical music's history as the week progresses.

First good suggestion yet.

[antongould]

Have we any analysis …. ?????

[french frank]

Have we any analysis …. ?????

I mentioned it briefly on the New Presenter for CotW thread, but the overall figures are pretty much 'more of the same'. The overall reach was, not unusually, under 2m (1.931m or "roughly 2m" in BBC-speak). The point I wanted to suggest on the other thread is that the listening hours are healthy which suggests a 'different kind of listener' - the kind that has the radio on for hours on end not really listening because there isn't much to listen to with great attention. And the kind of programme that might be selected for its intrinsic interest and depth can seldom be found on Radio 3. Breakfast listening was down a lot on the year, up a bit on last quarter but nothing remarkable about that.

I haven't done a full comparison, but CFM seems to be down by quite a bit

[Ein Heldenleben]

I mentioned it briefly on the New Presenter for CotW thread, but the overall figures are pretty much 'more of the same'. The overall reach was, not unusually, under 2m (1.931m or "roughly 2m" in BBC-speak). The point I wanted to suggest on the other thread is that the listening hours are healthy which suggests a 'different kind of listener' - the kind that has the radio on for hours on end not really listening because there isn't much to listen to with great attention. And the kind of programme that might be selected for its intrinsic interest and depth can seldom be found on Radio 3. Breakfast listening was down a lot on the year, up a bit on last quarter but nothing remarkable about that.

I haven't done a full comparison, but CFM seems to be down by quite a bit

Yes I noticed that. From 4 % in TSA to 3.6% . A ten percent fall which is big enough to be statistically significant.

[antongould]

Not good for R3 ……. ???????

[Bryn]

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-aud...ref=biztoc.com does not even mention Radio 3.

[oddoneout]

Interesting penultimate paragraph here re: BBC, podcasts and younger audiences

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/aug/03/bbc-radio-2-loses-1-million-listeners-since-ken-bruce-departure

Possibly confirms what some of us suspected about the intrusion of Dumbtime into TTN?

Drat. I didn't intend to use the spacewasting link display - will have to go back and check what I did wrong - and write down the better way instead of misremembering!
And I didn't realise that the addition of an edit wouldn't be noted. Is that because I didn't give a reason for the edit?

[french frank]

And I didn't realise that the addition of an edit wouldn't be noted. Is that because I didn't give a reason for the edit?

On that one point, no. You are allowed a certain number of minutes (8?) to edit without the editedby note being added. You edited within the given time.

I had a small point to make re the latest figures but was mulling it over (and getting lunch) for a while before sharing

[Pulcinella]

...

And I didn't realise that the addition of an edit wouldn't be noted. Is that because I didn't give a reason for the edit?

I'd noticed that even having given a reason, and wondered about raising it on the Anomalies thread (but no doubt it will be spotted here).
Perhaps someone has to tweak another display option somewhere.

[antongould]

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-aud...ref=biztoc.com does not even mention Radio 3.

Indeed

[Serial_Apologist]

I'd noticed that even having given a reason, and wondered about raising it on the Anomalies thread (but no doubt it will be spotted here).
Perhaps someone has to tweak another display option somewhere.

Personally I'm glad not always having to give a reason - my reasons too often being that I've not completely thought through what I had wanted to say, and am ashamed at having to admit it!