The future of classical music / arts stations

[french frank]

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?

Possibly, if the high-ups decide R3 no longer 'needs' so much money spent on it. Presenter-led, CD-based programmes are the cheapest of all (at least on R3 which doesn't have 'star' presenters). I suspect 'live' radio concerts are appreciated by a dwindling audience.

[kernelbogey]

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

Indeed Anton... I have only just recently started to appreciate the treasure trove that is (are?) Sounds, having recently acquired some decent headphones, and so a whole new dimension to listening.

I can't remember the detail but some broadcasters (I think) are complaining (like, offically) about Sounds which they consider unfair competition (or it may be Apple/Spotify et al).

[kernelbogey]

.... 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.

A friend frequently trots out a favourite aphorism: 'If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them'.

[antongould]

......(at least on R3 which doesn't have 'star' presenters)....

Some might say they have at least one ........

[cloughie]

Some might say they have at least one ........

Suzi?

[french frank]

Some might say they have at least one ........

I doubt even she has the kind of salary that makes R3's eyes water!

[antongould]

Suzi?

Oh come on ......

[Cockney Sparrow]

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.

There are a lot of BBC haters out there.... And of course the present government hate it too. And - in my estimation - not least the commercial interests they are funded by** who want the BBC to be dismembered leaving the "public service" element an irrelevant rump and sop to supporters of such values. Whilst the elements which can turn a profit (or be buried to leave commercial interests better off) will be transferred to the private sector.
(**party and individually - back scratching, future jobs - just read Private Eye)

Osborne must have accummulated loyalty points with foreign media owners ("not resident in the UK for tax" but able to influence us all as to our opinions) when he delivered the latest and deeply harmful blow to the BBC in seeking to make it fund benefits for over 75's regardless of their ability to pay for a basic service. It would be a double irony if he arrived as the next BBC DG (rumoured in the Times - although nowadays that paper can be an inflammatory sounding board for No 10 miscreants).

In this scenario whatever the BBC does is going to be criticised - moribund Radio replay - "BBC fails to innovate with all that levied income". BBC innovates with successful Sounds app/branding "BBC dominance overwhelms small "independent" radio broadcasters who can never hope to compete. Etc, etc....

I fervently hope I'm wrong - but enjoy the BBC while we may I say. (Referencing my post above, we're not going to be lucky enough to have anyone with the principle and decency of Jacinda Ahern making these decisions before May 2024).

[cloughie]

Oh come on ......

Well I did display an ironic alongside my suggestion!

[kernelbogey]

There are a lot of BBC haters out there.... And of course the present government hate it too. And - in my estimation - not least the commercial interests they are funded by** who want the BBC to be dismembered leaving the "public service" element an irrelevant rump and sop to supporters of such values. Whilst the elements which can turn a profit (or be buried to leave commercial interests better off) will be transferred to the private sector.
(**party and individually - back scratching, future jobs - just read Private Eye)

I fervently hope I'm wrong - but enjoy the BBC while we may I say. (Referencing my post above, we're not going to be lucky enough to have anyone with the principle and decency of Jacinda Ahern making these decisions before May 2024).

I hope that before 2024 we will have had the public enquiry into the government's handling of Coronavirus in the UK; and that either as a consequence, or hopefully through 'public opinion', the scandalous use of private contractors, accountancy firms masquerading as test-and-trace experts, b****y S***O and all the other assorted gravy-train passengers mopping up fees for what the public sector could have done better will have been exposed for the outrage and waste of public money that it is.

Which, to return to topic , might suggest that the BBC does what it does better than any profit-driven organisation could do in its place.

(i am now going for a little lie-down.)

[Richard Barrett]

I hope that before 2024 we will have had the public enquiry into the government's handling of Coronavirus in the UK; and that either as a consequence, or hopefully through 'public opinion', the scandalous use of private contractors, accountancy firms masquerading as test-and-trace experts, b****y S***O and all the other assorted gravy-train passengers mopping up fees for what the public sector could have done better will have been exposed for the outrage and waste of public money that it is.

What you describe, however, is exactly what people voted for. Ten years of Tory government have made it completely clear that all of this, which should be called the systemic corruption that it is, is their modus operandi. Part of which, as in the USA, involved downgrading the state of preparedness for the kind of pandemic which epidemiologists around the world were saying was bound to arrive sooner or later. So people who could vote for all this would have no problem voting for such downgrading of the BBC as Murdoch et al are pushing at them every day.

[cloughie]

I hope that before 2024 we will have had the public enquiry into the government's handling of Coronavirus in the UK; and that either as a consequence, or hopefully through 'public opinion', the scandalous use of private contractors, accountancy firms masquerading as test-and-trace experts, b****y S***O and all the other assorted gravy-train passengers mopping up fees for what the public sector could have done better will have been exposed for the outrage and waste of public money that it is.

Which, to return to topic , might suggest that the BBC does what it does better than any profit-driven organisation could do in its place.

(i am now going for a little lie-down.)

Yes, but why do they pay Crisp Advertising freeloaders so much? - behind that smug grin is a laugh all the way to the bank!

[gurnemanz]

I enjoy Radio 3 but don't listen heavily to Breakfast or Essential, whose style does not match my personal preference. However, I do have friends and relations who do like that approach and who I do not write off as part of the "dumbed down" contingent. I've listened to R3 since I was a teenager over 50 years ago and despite shortcomings it still offers plenty in the style of the "good old days" as well as the new more informal style. Obvious more recent enhancements to the experience include website programme info, 24/7 programming, audio quality, Sounds/iPlayer, video streaming of eg Wigmore recitals etc.

[Leinster Lass]

I'm told that, back in the day, the Radio 3 programme that began at 9.00 a.m. on weekdays started with short pieces or extracts and gradually led the listener to one or more substantial offerings in the last hour or so - a format which would suit me. However, I have far too many CDs as it is, so I rely on them for more nutritious post-breakfast fare.
(I'm currently enjoying Dvorak's Wind Serenade on Lyric's 'Full Score').

[french frank]

I'm told that, back in the day, the Radio 3 programme that began at 9.00 a.m. on weekdays started with short pieces or extracts and gradually led the listener to one or more substantial offerings in the last hour or so - a format which would suit me. However, I have far too many CDs as it is, so I rely on them for more nutritious post-breakfast fare.
(I'm currently enjoying Dvorak's Wind Serenade on Lyric's 'Full Score').

I stand to be corrected here - many people have been listening to R3/The Third for longer than I have. My impression is that the breakfast time programme has always been the least demanding, 'easing' into the day. But I don't remember until recent times that it had extracts from longer works. The pieces tended to be shorter (no 40-minute symphonies), but not the 5-6 minute average that we have now.

I'd take issue with gurnemanz on one thing he said ("friends and relations who do like that approach and who I do not write off as part of the "dumbed down" contingent"): writing off people as dumbed down is not at all what many of us are saying. Programmes aimed at children, which are made 'accessible' for their age group, does not imply that the children are considered a 'dumbed down contingent' by adults. The dissatisfaction is at the consequent loss of something more 'advanced' (for want of a better term) for listeners who want that. Attracting a broader, general audience has entailed removing/reducing/putting on late at night content that will be off-putting to that specific audience.