Trails

[teamsaint]

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.

Have you tried telling that to passport control ?

And if you are, you are not age qualified for this forum , surely?!

Any old how, as the Jazzer suggests, almost all cultural activity is minority. As an example , even the biggest England Football matches only get around 50% of the population watching on TV. That's the biggest event, in the most popular spectator activity.

I had another point, but I have forgotten it. But the whirl of Elgar Violin music was worth it.


(Edit: @Noggo, there is a link about the Stravinsky Violin Concerto performance on CD review sub forum.)

[french frank]

You're all misrepresenting what I'm saying, to varying extents. I haven't praised the extremes (Breakfast, Essential Classics, etc.) of today

No, but the basic gripe is not only that they're awful (from a certain point of view) - but they monopolise the most popular listening times, every weekday i.e. when heretofore the gripers expected to find programmes that were listenable.

Your argument works both ways: if you expect people to 'filter out' the inane bonhomie and just listen to the 'good' music (Star Wars again, anyone?), why are people not expected to 'filter out' the mention of C# minor or Op. 130 - and just listen to the music? As James May said, 'If you’re not interested, find something else.'

It only alienates people who aren't prepared to be interested in the basic mechanics, but just want some 'nice' music and friendly chat. That's Classic FM. Somewhere within its vast broadcasting portfolio the BBC should be stimulating an interest in classical music (and the other R3 content) with programmes that come on with regularity - not once every five years in some sort of pan-BBC 'season', never to be seen again.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep at least some of the curate's egg was ok
Hon G your defence is more 'reasonable' by the hour; the trouble is my critique is utterly unreasonable and demanding ... i am just too tired of crap and bullshit, and worse from RW
the trails and 'bonhomie' are alien and unneeded - i would guess that from a young person's perspective uncool in the extreme - as enticing as a sing along in a retired person's incarceration centre [oops home]

[Honoured Guest]

Trails - These are BBC policy. Radio 3 couldn't opt out of this policy if it wanted to. French Frank will maybe back up my factual comment here.

Inane bonhomie - French Frank, I repeat that's not what I'm advocating. In my Mixing It example, the presenters were expert and were giving full information in their own words conversationally, which I find much more assimilable than an announcer reading a producer's impersonal script. They also had the scope to advise on what to listen out for or to make comparisons and links with other music.

Young person's perspective - I don't think this is about age of the listener; it's more about inclination. Several posts on this board tell of devouring Radio 3 in their youth. Only a very few people naturally respond in that way. But many more people are interested in musical explorations, and listen to the music in their own way, without the benefit of analysis and dry classification. I think the trick is to retain the breadth of music broadcast without alienating everyone outside the "in-on-it" listening clique. Natalie Wheen could do it!

Music in care homes - My stepmother tells me she very much enjoys the regular visits of a classical singer, although she was disappointed when she recently repeated her programme of the previous recital!

[Thropplenoggin]

Trails - These are BBC policy. Radio 3 couldn't opt out of this policy if it wanted to. French Frank will maybe back up my factual comment here.

Inane bonhomie - French Frank, I repeat that's not what I'm advocating. In my Mixing It example, the presenters were expert and were giving full information in their own words conversationally, which I find much more assimilable than an announcer reading a producer's impersonal script. They also had the scope to advise on what to listen out for or to make comparisons and links with other music.

Young person's perspective - I don't think this is about age of the listener; it's more about inclination. Several posts on this board tell of devouring Radio 3 in their youth. Only a very few people naturally respond in that way. But many more people are interested in musical explorations, and listen to the music in their own way, without the benefit of analysis and dry classification. I think the trick is to retain the breadth of music broadcast without alienating everyone outside the "in-on-it" listening clique. Natalie Wheen could do it!

Music in care homes - My stepmother tells me she very much enjoys the regular visits of a classical singer, although she was disappointed when she recently repeated her programme of the previous recital!

And 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[french frank]

Trails - These are BBC policy. Radio 3 couldn't opt out of this policy if it wanted to. French Frank will maybe back up my factual comment here.

I think I mentioned that point somewhere - my understanding is that it's the BBC marketing department that decides how much, how many, how long, where, and what. But pointing the finger at 'the BBC' rather than 'Radio 3' doesn't improve the situation, and Radio 4 listeners grumble as well. Music radio stations are more vulnerable because trails can be popped in anywhere in the middle of a programme, between pieces of music, to catch listeners unawares. It was the beginning of the end when they started appearing in the middle of CD Masters.

Inane bonhomie - French Frank, I repeat that's not what I'm advocating. In my Mixing It example, the presenters were expert and were giving full information in their own words conversationally, which I find much more assimilable than an announcer reading a producer's impersonal script. They also had the scope to advise on what to listen out for or to make comparisons and links with other music.

Mixing It? Ah, yes, that will be the one that was axed unexpectedly by RW. We were given the full details of how that was announced to the presenters ........ In classical music, presenters are regarded as 'experts' if they have a degree in music, regardless of whether they know anything about what they're talking about.

Young person's perspective - I don't think this is about age of the listener; it's more about inclination. Several posts on this board tell of devouring Radio 3 in their youth. Only a very few people naturally respond in that way.

Which fits with Radio 3's 'minority interest' audience.

Incidentally, I've been pondering RW's reference to a D-G who was 'dismayed to hear Radio 3's breakfast audience had increased'. I think that was a somewhat typical Ruggieresque garbling of a point Michael Grade once made: that if Radio 3's listening figures suddenly 'shot up' something would have 'seriously gone wrong'. : it was an acknowledgement that, as someone else once said - if a 'cultural network' is to 'do its job properly, it will only ever have a very small audience. But that audience matters'.

I don't believe any comment was said to RW about Breakfast figures by any D-G. Personally.

[Sydney Grew]

Somewhere there is something very wrong. These advertisements or "trails" are having an effect precisely opposite to their purported or professed effect: they are driving the listeners away in droves.

And, the management act as though they do not realize what is happening - because if they did they would put a stop to their abominable "trails" would they not?

But no, surely those in charge are not, and cannot be, that stupid. My conclusion is that whether there are listeners or not no longer concerns the management; what bothers them in their day to day activity must be something quite different, such as inter-departmental tussles, or serving some secret and unstated cause. Either the "management" no longer has the power to manage - it has been taken out of their hands (and they are afraid to say so) - OR the secret intention of the "trails" is to do precisely what they are doing, namely drive listeners away.

The necessary conclusion - and the starting-point for all further lobbying - must be that what at present is happening to Radio 3 (the hæmorrhaging of their audience) is exactly what the management WANT to be happening!

[Lento]

We had what I thought was a most enjoyable performance of a Mendelssohn quartet by the Talich this morning (Thurs 10th June). Just an idle thought, but I'd have liked a longer break between the end of the music and the beginning of the following trail, which itself began with music.