Trails

[Stillhomewardbound]

... do you make other people listen to it then Stillhomewardbound and then go into the next room?

No, only the fridge, but I'm not bothered about that. I've been getting the cold shoulder from that corner of the flat for years. Arf, Arf!!

Couple of further, minor points to make. The Green and White papers being discussed go back to 2005 & 2006. That's some eight years ago and it might be said the interpretation of their findings have been broadended, if not actually distorted. Time for some re-calibration, methinks.

As for statements like this: <<And I don't think Radio 3 would be allowed to continue in its old form with its hermetic audience and a broadcasting style apparently cultivated to exclude everyone else.>>

The classical music canon is what it is and requires a bit of work and commitment from those that wish to appreciate it. It should be the job of Radio 3 to celebrate that richness, not apologise, feebly for it.

To those that say, 'y'know this 'cultivated air' thing - it does put some people off', I'm inclined to suggest it's a bit like insisting that the The Times ought to be more like The Sun.

[mangerton]

It was when my mother was there - in the 1920s!

And when I was there in the 60s :

When he killed the Mudjokivis,
Of the skin he made him mittens,
Made them with the fur side inside,
Made them with the skin side outside.
He, to get the warm side inside,
Put the inside skin side outside;
He, to get the cold side outside,
Put the warm side fur side inside.
That's why he put the fur side inside,
Why he put the skin side outside,
Why he turned them inside outside.

[Serial_Apologist]

That doesn't, as I thought, appear to be one of RD Laing's "Knots", Mangerton!

[mangerton]

That doesn't, as I thought, appear to be one of RD Laing's "Knots", Mangerton!

Oh no. According to Verse and Worse, the best poetry book I've ever read, it was written by George A Strong (qv).

[french frank]

As for statements like this: <<And I don't think Radio 3 would be allowed to continue in its old form with its hermetic audience and a broadcasting style apparently cultivated to exclude everyone else.>> ...

I'm not sure exactly what it means. In real terms, like. In what way does anything exclude anyone?

[Old Grumpy]

I'm inclined to suggest it's a bit like insisting that the The Times ought to be more like The Sun.

Some might suggest it has become more like the Sun!!

[Honoured Guest]

As for statements like this: <<And I don't think Radio 3 would be allowed to continue in its old form with its hermetic audience and a broadcasting style apparently cultivated to exclude everyone else.>>

I'm not sure exactly what it means. In real terms, like. In what way does anything exclude anyone?

I meant the "old form" of Radio 3 presentation, which continues nowadays on Through the Night. All the music is linked by an announcer with a mellifluous voice who simply reads a brief script giving musicological details. There is no human engagement with the music, which you do get with the presenters of today's specialist music programmes. The "old" audience like this inhuman announcement style spieling out tempi, original performers, etc. but it's meaningless to a general audience who find this announced info meaningless to them, and so they conclude that the music is not for them, whereas they might well enjoy it if it were introduced ina more appropriate way. Think how most concert programme notes have changed in style and content over the years, and you'll see the point I was making. Perhaps "alienate" would have been a better word than "exclude".

The classical music canon is what it is and requires a bit of work and commitment from those that wish to appreciate it. It should be the job of Radio 3 to celebrate that richness, not apologise, feebly for it.

To those that say, 'y'know this 'cultivated air' thing - it does put some people off', I'm inclined to suggest it's a bit like insisting that the The Times ought to be more like The Sun.

"Celebrate that richness, not apologise, feebly for it." Yes, absolutely! I completely agree with that. The music content should absolutely be rich, but the presentation should engage with a general audience, and not alienate people who aren't familiar with terms and concepts of structure and technical language. In my opinion.

[decantor]

The music content should absolutely be rich, but the presentation should engage with a general audience, and not alienate people who aren't familiar with terms and concepts of structure and technical language. In my opinion.

I trust our Honoured Guest will accept that the converse opinion might also be valid.

Context matters. To have a Beethoven quartet introduced as if it were the next item on the bill of an end-of-pier show does the listener no favours: if the music is serious and dignified, to witter on, cocktail-party style, about how fabulous, wonderful, and fantastic it is can only be described as meretricious and insulting - to all parties. Furthermore, I do not understand why it is so alienating to have a few aspects of complex music explained in measured tones: is education off the agenda entirely?

The attitude HG strikes comes, in my view, very close to disparaging the audience: "They're all just ignorant buffoons out there. Just chat excitedly to get their attention, and then spin the CD". Is that really what we've come to? Is that really what we pay for? Will that really widen the reach?

And then there are the trails..... and more trails, and more trails, and more trails...... and even trails in the middle of programmes. But I shouldn't be commenting at all. I've switched off, and I weep in silence for what we once had.

[Sydney Grew]

All over the world the common people are on the march!

[Stillhomewardbound]

I meant the "old form" of Radio 3 presentation, which continues nowadays on Through the Night. All the music is linked by an announcer with a mellifluous voice who simply reads a brief script giving musicological details. There is no human engagement with the music, which you do get with the presenters of today's specialist music programmes. The "old" audience like this inhuman announcement style spieling out tempi, original performers, etc. but it's meaningless to a general audience who find this announced info meaningless to them, and so they conclude that the music is not for them, whereas they might well enjoy it if it were introduced ina more appropriate way. Think how most concert programme notes have changed in style and content over the years, and you'll see the point I was making. Perhaps "alienate" would have been a better word than "exclude".

Meaningless to a general audience? ... this inhuman announcement? ... they might well enjoy it if it were introduced in a more appropriate way?


My, oh my, grandma! What big and rash generalisations you do make.

Sorry, but it is simply a complete falsehood to imagine that different styles of presentation make the difference between the larger audience engaging with the classical repertoire or going elsewhere.

To my mind, someone that has tuned to Radio 3 is there because they are open to the possibilities of what the network has to offer. It is not Blue Peter banalities that got them there, no more than the Church of England garnered new converts by turning their services into imitations of Songs of Praise, complete with overhead projections and bouncing ball skipping over the subtitles.

[Sir Velo]

The music content should absolutely be rich, but the presentation should engage with a general audience, and not alienate people who aren't familiar with terms and concepts of structure and technical language. In my opinion.

Thing is; even on its own terms this strategy is a failure. In case you hadn't noticed R3 listener figures are in free fall, so it's clear that the Blue Peter presentation, "and now for Ant Bruckner's sassy (q.v.) 6th simf" neither draws the new listener in, nor maintains the existing audience.

I'm afraid some things are so intrinsically difficult that no amount of popularising gabble can disguise the fact that active listening is required. Next, I expect you'll be telling the editor of the Lancet that in order to increase his august publication's circulation he should start all articles with "Now children, we're going to learn how to cut up a body today. See that red beating thing, that's called a heart". That way he won't be alienating that tiny percentage of new readers who feel intimidated by big concepts and long words. Sod the existing readership though.

[french frank]

Perhaps "alienate" would have been a better word than "exclude".

But the nu-style 'alienates' the people who don't find it meaningless. What provision is made, on the BBC's 'classical music station', for people who love classical music, other than some programmes dotted throughout the schedule, mainly at the less popular listening times? That does not constitute a 'radio station' which THEY can engage with. 'Alienation' means that: they switch off and can't be bothered to hunt for the programmes that they might like. Hence the, now renowned, problem with the listening figures.

It was a gamble which didn't come off; that was persisted with, years after that had become obvious. Radio 3 used to be a serious - and educational - station for people (unlike you, by your own admission) who want to be 'taken further', or stretched, in fields which really interest them.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well as a youngster and for many years since i have appreciated the dry announcing style of R3; much more classless than the Home/R4 and there was an openness of mind and discourse in the detached rather than personalised introductions

i would like R3 to be a temple to the arts of music speech and serious thought not a temple to a Station Identity or Brand, nor a temple to Personalities in faux demotic style ... there is plenty of such crap on the airwaves including CFM ... why is R3 aping a commercial radio station? it is to be that our entire world of broadcasting is to be pepsificated?

serious art is a minority interest; so are Welsh and Gujurati Cultures yet these are broadcast as minority interest stations with none of the absolute tripe that presently assails R3 ... a minority interest is neither elitist nor hermetic nor class hegemonic [unlike R4!!!] it is however much smaller than the mass interest ... and in the UK, since the creation of public service broadcasting, serving minority interests has been a most welcome and appreciated integral element of the overall service


no doubt R3 can be improved, but it does not require a mass or larger audience, a demotic style, personality presenters or the tactics of a commercial station or brand - it requires a much stronger understanding and delivery of its mission as a servant of the arts of music speech &c ....

[Thropplenoggin]

well as a youngster and for many years since i have appreciated the dry announcing style of R3; much more classless than the Home/R4 and there was an openness of mind and discourse in the detached rather than personalised introductions

i would like R3 to be a temple to the arts of music speech and serious thought not a temple to a Station Identity or Brand, nor a temple to Personalities in faux demotic style ... there is plenty of such crap on the airwaves including CFM ... why is R3 aping a commercial radio station? it is to be that our entire world of broadcasting is to be pepsificated?

serious art is a minority interest; so are Welsh and Gujurati Cultures yet these are broadcast as minority interest stations with none of the absolute tripe that presently assails R3 ... a minority interest is neither elitist nor hermetic nor class hegemonic [unlike R4!!!] it is however much smaller than the mass interest ... and in the UK, since the creation of public service broadcasting, serving minority interests has been a most welcome and appreciated integral element of the overall service


no doubt R3 can be improved, but it does not require a mass or larger audience, a demotic style, personality presenters or the tactics of a commercial station or brand - it requires a much stronger understanding and delivery of its mission as a servant of the arts of music speech &c ....

Bien dit!

I was drawn thither for the same reason: a consistent tone of high seriousness, which, a few decades ago, was not something to be ashamed of. It just was serious-minded, not self-consciously so. It's presentational style superb. TTN's presentation style offers me a glimpse of that past. Occasionally daytime presenters do, too, such as Penny Gore, who as a vintage R3 voice that does not grate. I'm now 36, was then in my late teens/early 20s, and was going to R3 to get what I couldn't find anywhere else.

[Honoured Guest]

You're all misrepresenting what I'm saying, to varying extents. I haven't praised the extremes (Breakfast, Essential Classics, etc.) of today - I tried to explain why I thought the "old" impersonal factual announcement style alienated general listeners, in my opinion. I know that it suited some of you (e.g., akaCDJ, Throps), but in my opinion its appeal was limited to what I called (perhaps using the wrong word?) an hermetic audience, much more limited than the larger audience which might enjoy much of the music.

I've just been reading people's comments on yesterday's "dialogue" Building a Library on Purcell's songs, and that sounds like what I would think of as ideal presentation. Another example of excellence would be the longrunning (now long-"rested") Mixing It where two permanent co-presenters personally selected the music and introduced it in a useful way to the listeners, and afterwards briefly discussed it between themselves. The personal presentation of Late Junction is often engaging. Nothing to do with demotic speech or personalities or celebrities or class or commercialism or branding or any of the other similar things you falsely throw at me.