Latest RAJARs

[french frank]

I often play music in the background and can understand the use of "wallpaper" to condemn this habit, but I don't feel guilty or frivolous when I do so. I certainly don't want Parsifal or Winterreise "babbling away" in the background as I solve a crossword clue or do the washing-up.

Who listens to music intently and concentratedly all day long?

What can one say except that Radio 3 is for you and your way of listening? And add that - that is what radio listening has become for most people (I suppose)? It's not a question of who 'listens to music intently and concentratedly all day long': it's a question of finding something to listen to in such a way at any time of the day. Just pointing to recitals and concerts doesn't cut it, because such music (without context) is available from multiple sources. It's a question of the intelligence and insights that are given and with which the music is treated.

But I've become tired of making these points.

[AuntDaisy]

I'm just reading a paper about the changes made to music programming in 1957-1967: there was opposition within Radio 3 to this kind of 'wallpaper' music back then.

Is it by Richard Witts? Intriguing journal choice, if so. Let "no Bartók before breakfast” be thy motto.

[french frank]

Is it by Richard Witts? Intriguing journal choice, if so. Let "no Bartók before breakfast” be thy motto.

It is indeed that. I went to a talk at the British Library by Richard Witts some years back (Roger Wright's day but attended by Nicholas Kenyon and a person from Radio 3 who was not well pleased). It was discussing Radio 3 presentation as 'the words surrounding the music'. Most of the examples of modern presentation were received with laughter.

Yes, Bach (a bit of) before Brekkers, but not Bartók.

One gets tired of saying that this isn't about intellect, intelligence, education, any more than it's about elitism, snobbishness, toffism. It's about what an individual would like to listen to. Some people are now satisfied with what they're getting, others aren't.

[AuntDaisy]

Was the BL talk this one, favourably reported in the Grauniad?

The Third way
Radio 3 is under fire for being too chatty. And too highbrow. Whatever. You can't please all of the people...

Charlotte Higgins
Thu 6 Nov 2003 10.32 GMT

There are few certainties in life, but one is that people are always scrapping about Radio 3. Not bad for a station that can boast just 1.1% of the national listenership. The last mauling it received was from Gerald Kaufman MP, who wrote to Roger Wright, Radio 3's controller, complaining about the amount of talk on the station. "I do not want to hear the little anecdotes and thoughts of Radio 3 presenters," he said. Paradoxically, the station is not just accused of dumbing down, but is just as often held up as the very nadir of dreary, snobbish, buttoned-up intellectualism, as in the Dead Ringers parody that had an announcer declaring that one really had to have been dead for five years to appreciate the nuances of classical music.

On Tuesday, Richard Witts gave a penetrating account of the network's history at a British Library lecture - and it is in this history that the seeds of such wildly opposing views are to be found. The very inception of the BBC in the 1920s was consciously concerned, in the words of Stanley Baldwin, with the "social betterment of our people". An advisory committee on spoken English pursued a form of pronunciation that transcended regional difference; bourgeois accents ruled. When the Third Programme was established in 1946, culture and class were intertwined; classical music was to be interleaved with accents of cut glass for decades to come. These crisp tones tended to impart crisp facts, and there were few outbursts of breathless enthusiasm of the sort that pepper today's output. It was as late as the 1990s that regional accents crept on to Radio 3.
Witts dates the "loosening of the Reithian knot", as he calls it, to 1987. June of that year saw both the start of Thatcher's privatisation-rich third term and the appointment of non-music graduate John Drummond to run Radio 3. Drummond disliked the station's academism, and the rot set in further, according to Witts, with Nicholas Kenyon's regime, coinciding with the rise of Classic FM and resulting in some gruesome attempts to compete (notoriously, the appointment of DJ Paul Gambaccini to slither his way around the morning schedules). From this time, too, came the "three witches", a triumvirate of management types presided over by Hilary Boulding, now head of music at Arts Council England, whose job was to eradicate the on-air use of musicological technical terms.
And so to the slick geniality of Wright, who, though he has restated some of Radio 3's core values, also presides over an era where classical music is presented - graphically so on the network website - as just primus inter pares alongside five other sub-brands of the station, namely jazz, world music, new music, drama, and "ideas and culture".
Most modern detractors of Radio 3 see its history as one of simple decline. In the old days, you could switch on and hear the abrasive tones of Hans Keller musing on some abstruse point of musical analysis. Nowadays it's all that giggly Verity Sharp. Simple factual presentation has given way to what was referred to on Tuesday night as "soliciting": giving music the hard sell, often by making rather hysterical claims for it, staging undemanding interviews with performers, and the like.
Yes, there is much to be disliked about the way Radio 3 presents music today. There's a lot of straightforward, cringe-making idiocy. But I have little patience with the whingeing of the old guard. To talk about "sullying" music by its presentation, as one former Radio 3 announcer did on Tuesday, is absurd. It is to suggest that there is only a finite audience "capable" of appreciating "serious music" and that "the pursuit of an audience is a disaster".
Maybe pursuit was unnecessary in the 1950s, but the uncomfortable truth is that now, in a crowded world, classical music does need passionate advocacy - and that needn't go hand-in-glove with dumbing down. If you actually love music, surely you must want to pass that love and excitement on to others? And is not the best way to do that by opening up complex ideas in simple, elegant language? Sad to say, some people would apparently rather belong to a small, embattled minority then have their pet enthusiasm enjoyed by the filthy masses.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Verity Sharp has got a lovely voice. It’s also rather posh….
I agree with the “over-selling.” Also the constant abuse of the words “ iconic” , “fantastic” , “awesome” and “ brilliant .”

[french frank]

Was the BL talk this one, favourably reported in the Grauniad?

That's the one. And I would say Higgins presented a fair description of the talk and the then Radio 3 ('straightforward, cringe-making idiocy'), given her own underlying vision:

If you actually love music, surely you must want to pass that love and excitement on to others? And is not the best way to do that by opening up complex ideas in simple, elegant language?

Yes, but the/my argument is that the last thing you get on today's Radio 3 is 'complex ideas in simple, elegant language'. Yes, of course you bloody-would want to pass on your love and enthusiasm rather than keep out the "filthy masses". But where are the complex ideas, in any sort of language?

What I don't know - I really don't - is whether people are incapable of processing 'complex ideas' or whether that simply isn't what they want or expect from their radio listening. In the end it doesn't matter which: my feeling would be that it's only a (diminishing) minority that wants that kind of broadcasting, so small that it isn't worth bothering with . But it used to be the audience that the Third and Radio 3 were designed to cater for.

[Serial_Apologist]

Was the BL talk this one, favourably reported in the Grauniad?

Thanks for finding and reproducing this address, AD - greatly appreciated, because it sets out some useful observations before, typically, drawing the wrong conclusions. And one can see precisely at what point - the penultimate paragraph. Elitism, as consisting in elevated analytical language excluding all bar a small, embattled minority bent on preventing access to their pet enthusiasm? Well that possibly was once the case, but mainly by default, I would think. It would arguably not have passed the minds of members of that "minority" to think in terms of broadening the appeal - such was the segmented character of education in the 1920s to the 1960s that culturally more sophisticated middle class people (in terms at least of artistic tastes) would probably not have given a thought to what working class people were interested in or capable of appreciating. And so these things were not considered appropriate when it concerned educating working class children destined for the factory floor until the coming of the Comprehensives. Yet the protocols and expectations associated with concert going endangered by admitting the "filthy masses", to borrow an unnecessarily emotive term for purely political reasons*, were and are no different in kind from those expected of a church or funeral goer of whichever class or denomination, and are pretty obvious to anyone attending for the first time.

Today - and at the time to some of us - it's hard not to think of the manner of popularisation foisted on Radio 3 from the early 1980s onwards as part and parcel of the ideological thrust of the time with its emphasis on a middle class cultural ethos supposedly associated with home ownership and upward mobility, ignoring the ubiquitous philistinism among the existing British petit bourgeoisie, which could easily be recruited for purposes of denigrating what had for some time already been denigrated as "metropolitan elitism", associated with left wing liberal ideas. An air of all-to obviously fake bonhomie to be promulgated as a cover for the pretense of bringing "culture" to the masses in market packageable form would thereafter run concurrently with a gradual erosion of general standards and efforts to put classical music across to an ever-shrinking demographic as older people passed on.

*

[french frank]

it sets out some useful observations before, typically, drawing the wrong conclusions.

And why is it necessary to accuse a "whingeing old guard" of describing anyone as "filthy masses", oiks, or any other denigratory insult? The WEA used - surely - to cater for those "filthy masses" without feeling a need to lower standards to cater for the supposed intellectual deficiencies of the working classes.

Re today's RAJARs: The data collection has been disrupted during Covid, so it has been impossible to make comparisons with earlier quarters. RAJAR say that from Q3 2021 a ‘modified survey methodology’ has been used. We have the previous two quarters to compare (Sept Q3 2021 and Dec Q4 2021) but accuracy is compromised.

If we compare today’s R3 figures with Q3 2021, reach has declined from 2.165m to 2.053m. Share is the same at 1.6%, though actual listening hours have gone down – as you would expect with a smaller audience. But reach and share are up on the previous quarter (Dec 2021). But overall, nothing dramatic.

One thing I notice which has been happening is that Radio 1’s reach and share has been declining over the past few years. Back in March 2020, R1 had an already declining reach of 8.915m (share 5.6%). The latest figures show a reach of 7.676m (share 4.7%). If Radio 3 has succeeded in attracting a younger audience with its more esoteric contemporary content, the obvious question would be: Why don’t they put that sort of programme on Radio 1 and keep hold of those younger listeners? 1Xtra has similarly seen a decline in reach (986k down to 749k).

[Ein Heldenleben]

That's the one. And I would say Higgins presented a fair description of the talk and the then Radio 3 ('straightforward, cringe-making idiocy'), given her own underlying vision:



Yes, but the/my argument is that the last thing you get on today's Radio 3 is 'complex ideas in simple, elegant language'. Yes, of course you bloody-would want to pass on your love and enthusiasm rather than keep out the "filthy masses". But where are the complex ideas, in any sort of language?

What I don't know - I really don't - is whether people are incapable of processing 'complex ideas' or whether that simply isn't what they want or expect from their radio listening. In the end it doesn't matter which: my feeling would be that it's only a (diminishing) minority that wants that kind of broadcasting, so small that it isn't worth bothering with . But it used to be the audience that the Third and Radio 3 were designed to cater for.

There is an audience for complexity and it’s bigger than some broadcasters assume. They’ve been blindsided a bit by the rise of the podcast - some of which contain quite complex narrative techniques. Also the success of online lectures - going back to the days of the AJP Taylor 30 minute lecture straight to camera . No one predicted that either..
The problem is there is vastly more competition for attention than in the fifties, sixties, seventies , even eighties. The cake is split so many ways now even though the amount of money spent on electronic entertainment and information exchange has vastly increased. To give one example it’s common for the marketing budget of a feature film to be a similar size to the production cost - that’s also happening with some feature length documentaries. Marketing is king and we are paying the price for that.

[Serial_Apologist]

There is an audience for complexity and it’s bigger than some broadcasters assume. They’ve been blindsided a bit by the rise of the podcast - some of which contain quite complex narrative techniques. Also the success of online lectures - going back to the days of the AJP Taylor 30 minute lecture straight to camera . No one predicted that either..
The problem is there is vastly more competition for attention than in the fifties, sixties, seventies , even eighties. The cake is split so many ways now even though the amount of money spent on electronic entertainment and information exchange has vastly increased. To give one example it’s common for the marketing budget of a feature film to be a similar size to the production cost - that’s also happening with some feature length documentaries. Marketing is king and we are paying the price for that.

That last sentance is paramount in appreciating the quality (and quantity!) of information overload expended on persuasion. Marketing strategies devised to shape the consuming public mindset prioritise ephemera (for which read pop culture) over durability because profitable turnover always supersedes basic needs in the perennial rat race for competitiveness. Those of us who believe in presenting culture informatively do so not for reasons of exclusivity but because we benefitted thereby from the times when this was done, and would claim every individual's right to them to be a plus for society as a whole.

[teamsaint]

And why is it necessary to accuse a "whingeing old guard" of describing anyone as "filthy masses", oiks, or any other denigratory insult? The WEA used - surely - to cater for those "filthy masses" without feeling a need to lower standards to cater for the supposed intellectual deficiencies of the working classes.

Re today's RAJARs: The data collection has been disrupted during Covid, so it has been impossible to make comparisons with earlier quarters. RAJAR say that from Q3 2021 a ‘modified survey methodology’ has been used. We have the previous two quarters to compare (Sept Q3 2021 and Dec Q4 2021) but accuracy is compromised.

If we compare today’s R3 figures with Q3 2021, reach has declined from 2.165m to 2.053m. Share is the same at 1.6%, though actual listening hours have gone down – as you would expect with a smaller audience. But reach and share are up on the previous quarter (Dec 2021). But overall, nothing dramatic.

One thing I notice which has been happening is that Radio 1’s reach and share has been declining over the past few years. Back in March 2020, R1 had an already declining reach of 8.915m (share 5.6%). The latest figures show a reach of 7.676m (share 4.7%). If Radio 3 has succeeded in attracting a younger audience with its more esoteric contemporary content, the obvious question would be: Why don’t they put that sort of programme on Radio 1 and keep hold of those younger listeners? 1Xtra has similarly seen a decline in reach (986k down to 749k).

Why on earth would the data collection be affected by covid? Other forms of surveillance have been thriving.Check out southern co-op for further details…..

[french frank]

Why on earth would the data collection be affected by covid? Other forms of surveillance have been thriving.Check out southern co-op for further details…..

Because, I think, the data collectors were normally required to go into people's houses and speak to them personally (or at least speak to them directly). This was suspended and replaced by an alternative system the details of which I don't know. I expect the system is described somewhere.

On the importance of "share": this is a metric which applies to the commercial sector. The longer a station is listened to during the week, and the more people listening, the more attractive it is for advertisers because their commercials are therefore heard more regularly. So if the BBC were paid for by advertising, Radio 2 and Radio 4 would be the two stations that would attract most advertising (11.1 hours weekly and 11.4 hours respectively), with 6 Music not far behind (9.9 hours). Radio 3 is now catching up (7.8 hours). In Q1 1995, pre-Roger Wright, it was 3.2 hours - probably equivalent to a couple of concerts per week.

The reason Radio 3's 'hours per listener' were so low at that time is that programmes were shorter and more distinctively subject focused. Listeners would be more selective and would tune on in order to listen to a specific item not just to have some thing to mentally tune in and out of as it babbled away in the background. But that would be hugely unattractive to advertisers because listeners would be likely to switch off before they even heard one advert. BUT - BBC services are not required to attract advertisers. In spite of that, the culture at BBC Radio, and Radio 3 along with the rest, is to keep listeners tuned in for as long as possible. Longer programmes, less difference between them at peak listening. Selective/discriminating listening was out, background listening is in.

[cloughie]

And why is it necessary to accuse a "whingeing old guard" of describing anyone as "filthy masses", oiks, or any other denigratory insult? The WEA used - surely - to cater for those "filthy masses" without feeling a need to lower standards to cater for the supposed intellectual deficiencies of the working classes.

Re today's RAJARs: The data collection has been disrupted during Covid, so it has been impossible to make comparisons with earlier quarters. RAJAR say that from Q3 2021 a ‘modified survey methodology’ has been used. We have the previous two quarters to compare (Sept Q3 2021 and Dec Q4 2021) but accuracy is compromised.

If we compare today’s R3 figures with Q3 2021, reach has declined from 2.165m to 2.053m. Share is the same at 1.6%, though actual listening hours have gone down – as you would expect with a smaller audience. But reach and share are up on the previous quarter (Dec 2021). But overall, nothing dramatic.

One thing I notice which has been happening is that Radio 1’s reach and share has been declining over the past few years. Back in March 2020, R1 had an already declining reach of 8.915m (share 5.6%). The latest figures show a reach of 7.676m (share 4.7%). If Radio 3 has succeeded in attracting a younger audience with its more esoteric contemporary content, the obvious question would be: Why don’t they put that sort of programme on Radio 1 and keep hold of those younger listeners? 1Xtra has similarly seen a decline in reach (986k down to 749k).

I think that ‘younger people’ is all relative and I doubt that the R1 leavers have all drifted to R3 - more likely that the ‘younger’ listeners are 40+ are also R6 listeners. As someone who listens to more than one station how would I be counted?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Because, I think, the data collectors were normally required to go into people's houses and speak to them personally (or at least speak to them directly). This was suspended and replaced by an alternative system the details of which I don't know. I expect the system is described somewhere.

On the importance of "share": this is a metric which applies to the commercial sector. The longer a station is listened to during the week, and the more people listening, the more attractive it is for advertisers because their commercials are therefore heard more regularly. So if the BBC were paid for by advertising, Radio 2 and Radio 4 would be the two stations that would attract most advertising (11.1 hours weekly and 11.4 hours respectively), with 6 Music not far behind (9.9 hours). Radio 3 is now catching up (7.8 hours). In Q1 1995, pre-Roger Wright, it was 3.2 hours - probably equivalent to a couple of concerts per week.

The reason Radio 3's 'hours per listener' were so low at that time is that programmes were shorter and more distinctively subject focused. Listeners would be more selective and would tune on in order to listen to a specific item not just to have some thing to mentally tune in and out of as it babbled away in the background. But that would be hugely unattractive to advertisers because listeners would be likely to switch off before they even heard one advert. BUT - BBC services are not required to attract advertisers. In spite of that, the culture at BBC Radio, and Radio 3 along with the rest, is to keep listeners tuned in for as long as possible. Longer programmes, less difference between them at peak listening. Selective/discriminating listening was out, background listening is in.

I’m not sure you can infer anything about people’s precise listening habits from the 95/21 comparison. The figures don’t drill down to the numbers of pieces listened to or whether the three hours per week was one solid block of three hours or indeed 12 x 15 minute sessions. Also Rajar always has a health warning on comparisons between years so far apart.
That said looking at Genome it’s fair to say that between 06.00/ 07.00 and 12.00 more short pieces are broadcast.
One key change between 1995 and now is 24 hour broadcasting. Since 95 Radio 3 has significantly increased the amount of music it broadcasts and viewed on a proportionate basis I reckon the amount of “whole piece” broadcasting remains the same. People forget about Matinée Musicale and Mainly For Pleasure, David Munrow etc . But in peak hours there’s def more excerpted or shorter pieces.
You are right about the move to “background “ listening . There’s been quite a lot of audience research into this. I don’t know much about the radio side of things but TV viewing is often “the background” to activities like reading , ironing , drinking , texting, chatting etc. The whole idea of doing one thing at a time in your leisure hours is very 19th century

[DracoM]

And all the time Music is threatened and dealt mortal blows in SCHOOLS, the notion that the young are going to 'flock' to R3 any time soon becomes as credible as Boris Johnson at the Dispatch Box in Parliament.