New BBC D-G

[french frank]

>>>>34 mentions of the word 'creative'. No one is yet sure what that might signify.

Might it have something to do with accounting?

[aeolium]

The key question is: Does the BBC accept that there is indeed an audience of half a million - and more - that will welcome such programmes? Do they accept that producing arts content in the format of popular entertainment shows is producing popular entertainment, not arts? Do they accept that producing arts content in a popular format which holds little or no interest for people who take a deep interest in the arts (that 5000, if you like) is unlikely to be valuable in developing a real interest in the arts in the half million who don't already have it?

There's no doubt that the arts coverage of the BBC is highly variable and sometimes downright wretched. Programmes like The Culture Show (which IIRC is a George Entwistle creation ) seem to me bitty, superficial and seeking the latest fashionable thing to discuss. On the other hand, there have been some very good series, for instance Andrew Graham-Dixon's series on The Art of Spain and Robin Lane Fox's fine programmes on Greek myths, which managed imo to combine erudition and elegant narrative in a way that was both informative and visually entertaining - though it could not remotely be considered 'popular entertainment'. That such programmes can be made shows that all is not lost, and despite the general dearth of classic drama on TV during recent years, the series of Shakespeare plays that appeared in the summer (at least one of which, Richard II, was very good indeed) again shows what is possible - though people at the BBC need to believe that it does not require a Cultural Olympics to schedule such plays.

There has always been a dilemma in presenting programmes about the arts or ideas, namely to decide how to present them for a generalist not specialist audience in a way that does not unduly compromise the content of what is presented, the difficulty/subtlety/'foreignness' (in the sense of the past being a foreign country) of the ideas. On a line running from completely specialist to completely populist, there seems little doubt that in recent years the BBC has moved more along the line towards the populist end in its arts presentation. Does this reflect in part a general cultural shift away from the public to the private (or perhaps the private made public) as seen in the growing emphasis on the presenter rather than what is presented, on personalities rather than ideas or content - as we see in the change in the Leeds Piano Competition coverage from showing competitors performing complete works to stories about the competitors? It's pretty inconceivable that a series like Magee's could be made in the present climate.

But there will always be a balance to be drawn. In a series about art treasures of the Roman empire - such as the one that has recently been shown - there will undoubtedly be some potential viewers who know a lot about the subject as well as many more who know very little or whose only experience of the treasures is as a tourist or visitor to the British Museum. That series in my view has to incline towards presenting primarily for the latter audience and not for the former, but in such a way that does not underestimate the intelligence, capacity for concentration or educational level of the viewer. The BBC does succeed in this sometimes, but not nearly often enough.

[french frank]

Another interesting quote:

"Once, BBC Television put classical music regularly in the heart of the schedule and now by and large it doesn't. The master-classes, the chamber music, the difficult new works which some of us grew up watching on BBC Television have largely vanished; the concert-relays and operas are still there, but less frequently than before and sometimes scheduled late into the night.

Now, what BBC executives traditionally do now is to read out a long list of counter-examples: all the wonderful concerts we do broadcast, the new commissions, the major events like the recent BBC Music Live. The list is real. We show a lot, probably more than any comparable broadcaster in the world, and much of it in peak.

But I'm not going to read out the list. Because the list doesn't answer the precise charge that these critics make: which is that there's much less than there once was, fewer hours, less impact, fewer risks.

And they're right."

That's the kind of D-G we need ...

[aeolium]

"Once, BBC Television put classical music regularly in the heart of the schedule and now by and large it doesn't. The master-classes, the chamber music, the difficult new works which some of us grew up watching on BBC Television have largely vanished; the concert-relays and operas are still there, but less frequently than before and sometimes scheduled late into the night."

Was this in fact true of BBC Television and what period is being discussed here? I'd be interested in some real statistics about BBC TV's coverage of classical music going back to the 1960s. I can only speak of the period dating from the 1970s and I don't really remember it like that - yes, there were operas from time to time, there were biopics such as the Ken Russell or Tony Palmer films, certainly masterclasses by performers like Barenboim and Tortelier and more extensive coverage of things like the Leeds Piano Competition. Yet Proms coverage on TV was IIRC much less extensive than it is now, until BBC Four came along. After all, for a long time BBC only had the two TV channels, and BBC2 which would have been the main outlet for classical music also provided documentaries, comedy, drama, serials etc. Recently there have been series such as Pappano's on opera, and there are still several opera broadcasts a year. I'd question the statement that "BBC Television put classical music regularly in the heart of the schedule" though I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong

[french frank]

Was this in fact true of BBC Television and what period is being discussed here? I'd be interested in some real statistics about BBC TV's coverage of classical music going back to the 1960s. I can only speak of the period dating from the 1970s and I don't really remember it like that

This is what Mr Thompson (for 'twas he) went on to say:

"When our second channel BBC 2 launched in 1964, serious music was central to its remit. It was a channel with acres of space, and classical music was one of the genres it used to fill that space, sometimes gloriously. Today BBC TWO is a crowded modern channel, trying to reach many different audiences with many different programmes: everything from Gormenghast to The League of Gentlemen to The Sikhs. The classical music audience is an important audience for BBC TWO, but - shades here, perhaps, of The New Yorker - it is one of many audiences."

To which one might respond: So, as the BBC's output expands with the introduction of new services, there becomes less and less airtime for the arts/classical music?

Interestingly, he also said (in 2004): "We were criticised a few weeks ago for putting some of the programmes in our event BBC Young Musician of the Year at the margins of the schedule. I thought the critics were right. We won't do it again."

Hmmm .... I suppose some people might say they preferred in-depth coverage at the margins of the schedule than no in-depth coverage at all.

[aeolium]

"When our second channel BBC 2 launched in 1964, serious music was central to its remit. It was a channel with acres of space, and classical music was one of the genres it used to fill that space, sometimes gloriously. Today BBC TWO is a crowded modern channel, trying to reach many different audiences with many different programmes: everything from Gormenghast to The League of Gentlemen to The Sikhs. The classical music audience is an important audience for BBC TWO, but - shades here, perhaps, of The New Yorker - it is one of many audiences."

H'm - acres of space? It had the same number of hours as the present BBC2, or probably fewer since broadcasting hours were generally more restricted then. Into that space there had to be filled Open University programming (which for a good period occupied quite a chunk of airtime), modern (Play for Today) and classic drama - the complete Shakespeare plays were transmitted over several years from the mid-1970s - serials such as The Forsyte Saga and I Claudius, documentaries, science programming like Horizon and the Sky at Night, and general arts programming like Arena which was by no means confined to music. Classical music including opera certainly did feature, but did it significantly exceed in quantity the coverage today on the different BBC TV channels? For all the greater coverage of BBC YMOTY and the Leeds competition, there was reduced coverage of the Proms. My memory may well be fallible here, but I certainly know that as an impoverished student and a not very well off employee in the 1970s and 1980s I tried to get up to London to see concerts and occasionally operas & if there had been a cornucopia of classical music on TV I doubt I would have made that effort as often.

I think the real issue here is not the quantity of TV coverage which may well not have greatly changed over the years, given the increase in the number of channels, but the perceived change in quality and seriousness of the coverage: the nature of the presentation; the use of celebrity presenters rather than experts; the hype; the emphasis on performers rather than the music (YMOTY, Leeds); the gimmicky series in which celebrities are prepared to conduct/sing/play classical music despite having had no prior training etc etc.

Thompson is wrong. There are easily enough hours available on his various channels to present classical music to the levels of high quality and seriousness that it deserves, especially if some of the endless lifestyle and food programmes were dispensed with. What's lacking is the will among the senior echelons of the BBC.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thompson is wrong. There are easily enough hours available on his various channels to present classical music to the levels of high quality and seriousness that it deserves, especially if some of the endless lifestyle and food programmes were dispensed with. What's lacking is the will among the senior echelons of the BBC.

.. or some of the Antique shows. It is unfortunate that the day that the new DG's comments about "creativity" appeared in the Radio Times coincided with the "new" series Antiques to the Rescue - which is Cash in the Attic with posh people!

[eighthobstruction]

>>>>"I don't have a passion for creating tiny niche stuff that only incredibly small numbers of people see" <<<<

....I'm in a niche, and I'm afraid they going to brick it up....

....beware more panel shows !....and chat shows hosted by comedians with punch lines to manoeuvre to and deliver.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/careers/what-we-do/vision

The Entwistle Soldiers <marching as to bore> http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ins...re/vision.html

[aeolium]

Good to see people aren't rushing to judgement - after all, he's been in the job for a good few days now