The future of classical music / arts stations

[Leinster Lass]

Our local classical/arts radio station has, at least for now, survived RTE's recent hefty budget cuts - Sunday afternoons without Aedin Gormley are hard to imagine!. I understand that there is a fairly vocal anti-BBC element that pops its head up from time to time in the UK - how safe do you think Radio 3 is following reports of possible new appointments and the announcement by the Director-General (or was it the Chairman?) that the BBC needs to become smaller? Online only would be better than nothing, I suppose, but it's not always convenient.

[french frank]

Our local classical/arts radio station has, at least for now, survived RTE's recent hefty budget cuts - Sunday afternoons without Aedin Gormley are hard to imagine!. I understand that there is a fairly vocal anti-BBC element that pops its head up from time to time in the UK - how safe do you think Radio 3 is following reports of possible new appointments and the announcement by the Director-General (or was it the Chairman?) that the BBC needs to become smaller? Online only would be better than nothing, I suppose, but it's not always convenient.

Hello rathfarnhamgirl, do you mean your station in Ireland, or more local to you (in which case, we should be so lucky). It's always been my view that R3 is a kind of fig leaf for the BBC. They wouldn't actually close it down (it "justiifies" the Proms by broadcasting all the concerts which makes them a 'broadcast event' rather than a music festival). It also is the backbone - along with Radio 4 - of their Public Service Broadcasting on radio. The other popular music stations are just a variant on the commercial stations.

How R3 is, or has been, 'evolving' is a different matter. It has been aiming for a broader audience and for some people what they now hear is absolutely fine, whether they're recently arrived listeners or long-standing ones. For others (like me ) it no longer has the rigour or educational value that it once had - but that's a direction that will, in my view, become ever more pronounced as those who want something more demanding shuffle off this mortal coil.

Theoretically, I would say it's not 'at risk' but …

[DracoM]

What, of course, the BBC's R3 policy is doing is driving more and more to desert it for other online stations round the world, many of whom, ahem, so deeply ironically - have taken their model from how R3 used to be!!!

[kernelbogey]

Welcome Rathfarnhamgirl! Good topic, and we should discuss it more IMV. As the BBC is under political - nay ideoolgical - threat, we need to shout about this.

(FF, n2: It's always been my view that R3 is a kind of fig leaf for the BBC.

FF - don't fig leaves curl up, go brown and, er, drop off?

[Leinster Lass]

Hello rathfarnhamgirl, do you mean your station in Ireland, or more local to you (in which case, we should be so lucky). It's always been my view that R3 is a kind of fig leaf for the BBC. They wouldn't actually close it down (it "justiifies" the Proms by broadcasting all the concerts which makes them a 'broadcast event' rather than a music festival). It also is the backbone - along with Radio 4 - of their Public Service Broadcasting on radio. The other popular music stations are just a variant on the commercial stations.

How R3 is, or has been, 'evolving' is a different matter. It has been aiming for a broader audience and for some people what they now hear is absolutely fine, whether they're recently arrived listeners or long-standing ones. For others (like me ) it no longer has the rigour or educational value that it once had - but that's a direction that will, in my view, become ever more pronounced as those who want something more demanding shuffle off this mortal coil.

Theoretically, I would say it's not 'at risk' but …

Sorry, I should have made clear that I was referring to RTE Lyric FM.
Regarding Radio 3, I just wondered whether the BBC might, if push came to shove, see it as a possible lamb that could be sacrificed in order to dissuade its detractors or opponents from forcing it to dispose of other stations or services.
I believe New Zealand's classical music station was recently turned into an online automated playlist - not good news for that country's fine national symphony orchestra!
Lyric FM differs from Radio 3 in certain respects - it has more regular news bulletins and traffic updates during the day, but also broadcasts complete concerts, both domestic and provided by other broadcasters, and operas, plus what I suppose you'd call it call eclectic programmes embracing different types of music most evenings. It also broadcasts some commercials and public service announcements. It is to be hoped that this model will safeguard its future - but I can't see Radio 3 going down the same road.
It has had to accept some changes, including a move from Limerick to Dublin and wage cuts, but the format and content of the programmes don't seem to have changed.

[french frank]

Sorry, I should have made clear that I was referring to RTE Lyric FM.

Well, I'd assumed you probably meant Lyric FM, but was thrown by the word 'local'. Sacrificial lamb? Well, it's been some years since the BBC had anyone interested in classical music anywhere above Radio 3's level (don't think the lately departed Lord Hall had much interest - his background was in news before he became 'chief businessman' of the ROH).

Who knows how their minds work? Anyone who thinks R3 is massively more expensive than all the other BBC stations hasn't looked at the books. It's only its weird 'cost per listener' that makes R3 seem more costly because of its relatively small audience; but it has to broadcast for 24 hours a day like all the others.

I don't know how much Lyric FM would cost per year, but it does seem to have a higher audience share (4%) than R3 (1.2%- 1.4%). The word 'subscription' has been muttered but how that would work in practice, I don't know.

[Cockney Sparrow]

As to New Zealand I think automation was the proposal (perhaps some here would opt for the abandonment of presenters/announcers/hosts and their pesky populising ways....).

However the Arts Minister who it seems is also the PM doesn't seem to be in favour of that proposal - see post #3 here:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?22332-CE-Wellington-Cathedral-of-St-Paul-New-Zealand-R-Wed-7-x-20&p=810760#post810760

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

... following reports of possible new appointments and the announcement by the Director-General (or was it the Chairman?) that the BBC needs to become smaller?.

I am as worried about the next person about the political downscaling of the BBC, but in economic terms the corporation has been living in a fools' paradise of constant expansion. Rather than running a high quality broadcasting service, it has been constantly looking over its shoulder at competing stations, and has gone on to mimic them. This has reduced, rather than increased choice for the listener. In the case of Radio 3, its puppet master has been Classic FM.

But it started long before that. The creation of ITV had a relatively limited effect, as the BBC then was sharp and imaginative enough to fend it off without dumbing down. It was pirate radio that set things off, with BBC renaming its three radio stations: Home Service = Radio 4, Light Programme = Radio 2 and Music/Third Programme = Radio 3. But they proudly announced that the new station, Radio 1, was the "New Pirate Radio".

Later on, ITV introduced early morning TV, so the BBC immediately brought out a copycat programme. Sky had 24 hour news, so the BBC did the same. Basically the BBC opted for constant expansion, which meant ever rising costs. It couldn't go on for ever. The trouble is, the BBC never admits to making errors of judgement.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I've no connection with New Zealand other than having made a very enjoyable trip before and after New Year 2018. Having mentioned NZ - and to re-assure I won't be posting off topic any further - I did hear Gareth Farr, composer and sometime percussionist tell this story from his orchestral days…..

https://www.rnz.co.nz/concert/programmes/upbeat/audio/2018635037/gareth-farr-fabulous-at-50

"His career has been full of memorable moments……. One of those moments came early in his career in the mid-90s. He was performing the tubular bells in a Hindemith piece with the NZSO, conducted by Franz-Paul Decker. During rehearsals Decker was on Farr’s “case”. “He did not like me,” he says. “He kept saying ‘What’s wrong with you? Can’t you play it any louder?’”
The team found Farr the biggest, hardest mallet they could find. He was hitting the bells so hard that chips were flying off the mallet during rehearsal. In the performance, at the Auckland Town Hall, Farr sat in silence, growing more anxious as his part approached – about 10 minutes into the piece. When it was time, he hit the tubular bell so hard that the string broke and it flew off the stand.

“I can see it in slow motion disappearing away from me,” Farr laughs. “It missed the principal trombonist’s head by four centimetres… dented the stage… and rolled across the stage stopping against the double basses.” He continued to play his part, despite the missing bell. And what did the conductor do? “He didn’t say a word.” "

"He also made a clatter………while participating at a Pacific Music Festival with the youth orchestra in Japan. Farr, and some of his fellow musicians went out dancing one night. He slipped and twisted his ankle badly. Come performance time he was unable to use his ankle. He picked up the cymbals, played them and went to put the instrument back on the stand, but it didn’t go as planned. “I went down like a pine tree! The cymbals went smash on the floor and frightened the heck out of the conductor [Bernstein],” Farr says. “I moved over and there wasn’t a foot to support me.” "

[kernelbogey]

I am as worried about the next person about the political downscaling of the BBC, but in economic terms the corporation has been living in a fools' paradise of constant expansion.....

I don't disagree with any of that, though I had forgottten that it was the pirates that had propelled the Beeb into those station name changes.

It seems to me that the the corporation has been innovative in its creation of Sounds (and iPlayer too) - recognising that the patterns of listening/viewing programmes have been radically altered by consumers wanting/being able to listen to/watch any and everything when they choose, rather than when it is broadcast. (My family of origin still gathered around the radio at 9 p.m. to iisten to the news in the 1950s - a habit they and milliions of other families had adopted during the war.) I think that step was enterprising - and so do many competitors who are crying wolf.

I remain a slightly starry-eyed fan of the BBC - as of the NHS! - and consider both to be incomparable national treasures (yes, even more than Alan Bennett!)

[french frank]

I am as worried about the next person about the political downscaling of the BBC, but in economic terms the corporation has been living in a fools' paradise of constant expansion.

I think the problem there is the continued fragmentation of genres and styles, catering to general tastes. If, purely in terms of radio as an example, it simply offered - superbly well - old-style Radio 3 and Radio 4, it would only attract a small audience. How could it justify taking the lion's and lioness's share of public funding for that? So it's a case of "Anything you can do, I can do better" with one new service after an another. I see the problem - it's just that I'm not too keen on the BBC's solution. The online news is now the only bit of the service I use - along with several other media outlets.

[kernelbogey]

I think the problem there is the continued fragmentation of genres and styles, catering to general tastes. If, purely in terms of radio as an example, it simply offered - superbly well - old-style Radio 3 and Radio 4, it would only attract a small audience. How could it justify taking the lion's and lioness's share of public funding for that? So it's a case of "Anything you can do, I can do better" with one new service after an another. I see the problem - it's just that I'm not too keen on the BBC's solution. The online news is now the only bit of the service I use - along with several other media outlets.

A retired kernel writes:
Harrumph. It's all very well saying things like that... but how do they justify what they pay that crisp-promoter talking about football on the television?
[]

[antongould]

.......
I remain a slightly starry-eyed fan of the BBC - as of the NHS! - and consider both to be incomparable national treasures (yes, even more than Alan Bennett!)

I agree kb - and unfairly subject to endless government, wrong headed, interference ....... BBC Sounds is, IMVVHO, a thing of near wonder .....

[Leinster Lass]

Lyric FM is heard by 278,000 adults a week and 130,000 adults 15 every weekday (not quite sure what that second figure means). Its relative success may be due in part to the presenters' lovely accents but, importantly, they don't patronize or lecture their listeners, and don't give the impression that they're at least as important as the programmes they present. Above all, the station sounds and feels comfortable with itself, but I'm not sure whether that goes for Radio 3, which sometimes seems to confuse friendly authority with what I would call 'synthetic matiness'.
Perhaps RTE as a whole has a clearer sense of purpose than the BBC, whose current outlook is perhaps reflected in Radio 3's apparent desire to appear more relevant to the times and 'consumer-friendly'. I may well get shot down in flames for saying it, but for me the overall tone of a programme is a key factor when deciding whether to listen to it. That's why I listen regularly to Radio 3 between roughly 6.30 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. (except on Saturdays ) but not so much thereafter.
Looking at the wider picture, do you not think there is a danger that we may ultimately be left with a choice between chatty, personality-led and increasingly listener-led programmes on the one hand and automated presenter-less online material, that features little if any live music, on the other?

[french frank]

A retired kernel writes:
Harrumph. It's all very well saying things like that... but how do they justify what they pay that crisp-promoter talking about football on the television?
[]

I merely pose the question. The BBC is constantly having to face attacks - from politicians and from its rivals. Getting a great [ex-] sportsman[sic] to pontificate on football sounds like something the politicians, at least, would approve of, even if the rivals are grinding their teeth in envy. Just different values. I too 'support' the BBC as an institution even if I no longer find any of its programming life-enhancing. In the case of Radio 3, I'm just sad to see it depart from its standards of erudition and authority - but if 'people' want a different type of station, in the same way that they want highly paid sports presenters, I don't complain - I just leave.