Things we didn't know about the B.B.C.

[Lateralthinking1]

Pilger's is as good an explanation as any of the present lamentable state of affairs:

a) the "dumbing" of everything to an infantile level

b) the reduction and submission of every subject to a cloud of meaningless chatter and exclamation

c) the endless repeats of Ghershwn Copland and the like

d) the continuous depiction of slaughter and horror on the television, both "fictional" and real.

We British in 2012, once so superior, now know how it must have been to be an Indian in 1930 a Frenchperson in 1940 or a Czech in 1950. What it all is is the atmosphere of a colony and the B.B.C. is the tool.

I don't agree with that assessment. Many or most things in broadcasting have been dumbed down but not everything. Where in radio there are exceptions to the rule, they tend to be on the BBC. As for the trite, that has always been a fact of life. There is a method in doing trite well. There are random ways of doing trite badly. I recognise that you wouldn't accept it. Nevertheless, just as standards have been compromised on Radio 3, so they have on other BBC stations and in all commercial radio. Arguably, they have slipped more alarmingly there. It is an international phenomenon. Imposing a few limits on it would be a half-decent start.

You are far from alone in considering many well-established aspects of radio unwise. Surely though any thoughts about getting rid of them completely are themselves empirical. Comedy, the phone-in, presenter chatter, pop music, news as light entertainment. I believe that all of these things realistically require a space even if they are not suited to Radio 3. Yes, cultural colonisation is likely to be felt where such things are overwhelmingly dominant. As they are seemingly almost everywhere and constantly on repeat, that is a real concern today. Those behind the iron curtain couldn't buy jeans. In most places, we can only have shell suits.

But many of these changes symbolise what happens when societies want more. People who bought a freeview box two decades ago might have expected an infinite variety of radio and television. Considerable numbers discovered that Bruce Springsteen was right. There could be 57 channels and nothing on. Much as ideologues will argue, contrary to all the evidence, that deregulation of the utilities has led to consumer choice, so they will continue to say that the BBC needs a kicking. Condemnation from a left wing journalist is less understandable. There can in those instances be an individual power issue. If so, it may risk turning on itself.

Unharnessed freedom tends to be the opposite of true freedom unless one really believes that the latter is derived from unlimited chatter. Phone-ins and even forums have the appearance to the heavily censored of liberty. They are often a diversion from meaningful influence. Like much that is sold in one way or another to the general public, such things are in many respects a masquerade. Still, in the broad realm of so-called entertainment, there is also something considerably darker. It applies to many aspects of broadcasting from the relentless downbeat tone of the news to prank telephone calls from DJs. Tim Davie got this right in a lecture that can be found on You Tube. Almost uniquely, he had the guts to describe the modern ethics as, quote, brutal although regrettably he also appeared to present them as acceptably irreversible. In a nutshell, that is the all-pervading attitude.

I doubt that late Jewish American composers should be blamed for this development. Some things in life never change as much as we might believe or even hope. There was a time during the 1980s when anti-semitism seemed to many prehistoric. Unfortunately it exists whether radio presenters wear dinner jackets to introduce opera or rebellious pensioners are reporting in slacks from the killing fields. Sure, it is virtually impossible to turn to digital audio broadcasting and find anyone there who is not a kidult. Like Will Self, I would rather go on a ramble but when I dare to look at society in the round I am wholly unsurprised they tend to chime.

You and I share a loathing for the continuous depiction of slaughter and horror on the television, both "fictional" and real. You should though forgive me when I suggest that there is a paradox. If Mr Pilger were to be Lord Patten, the inundation would be far greater and the number of medical prescriptions would rocket. He and his most vehement supporters might feel that blood and terror 24/7 would be to establish higher standards and motivate the masses into political action. Sadly, I am not at all convinced. Laboratories tell us that many people would become immune to it while others would struggle with depression. Given the choice, I would prefer to listen to a concert from the Barbican or even an episode of 'Dad's Army' before tending the roses in my garden.

[Pabmusic]

...Unharnessed freedom tends to be the opposite of true freedom unless one believes that the latter is derived from unlimited chatter. Phone-ins and even forums have the appearance to the heavily censored of liberty. They are often a diversion from meaningful influence. Like much that is sold in one way or another to the general public, such things are in many respects a masquerade. However, in the broad realm of so-called entertainment, there is something considerably darker. It applies to many aspects of broadcasting from the relentless downbeat tone of the news to prank telephone calls from DJs. Mark Davie got this right in a lecture that can be found on You Tube. Almost uniquely, he had the guts to describe the modern ethics as brutal although regrettably he also appeared to present them as acceptably irreversible. In a nutshell, that is the all-pervading attitude....

There is a fiction that increased competition (such as in the number of radio or TV stations) leads to better service. One of the things that's often said is that you get more choice. No you don't; you get less, but in more guises. It is a form of natural selection, where the decider is not the ability to pass on genes, but an increase in advertising revenue, or - in the case of the BBC - licence revenue. With natural selection, over time and within a species, the successful ones reproduce more successfully than the unsuccessful, so that the species becomes less diverse rather than more (indeed, that's part of what determines a species anyway). It's the same with competition for similar ends. The competitors copy what seems to work elsewhere, so that over time programmes become more alike. Classic FM is seen to be very successful, so Radio 3 has to become more like it, rather than less. Anything that's unusual runs the risk of failure (often accompanied by calls that it's 'elitist').

But this isn't new. In 1964 there was a weekly BBC children's classical music programme on TV - I remember, because I won a prize on it. There were children's quiz programmes such as Top of the Form that always included a question on classical music. Those have long since disappeared as broadcasters have moved closer to one another till a lowest common denominator emerges. No one now would be given the go-ahead for a regular classical music programme on mainstream TV (imagine the reaction if Face the Music were mooted for rebranding).

[Lateralthinking1]

There is a fiction that increased competition (such as in the number of radio or TV stations) leads to better service. One of the things that's often said is that you get more choice. No you don't; you get less, but in more guises. It is a form of natural selection, where the decider is not the ability to pass on genes, but an increase in advertising revenue, or - in the case of the BBC - licence revenue. With natural selection, over time and within a species, the successful ones reproduce more successfully than the unsuccessful, so that the species becomes less diverse rather than more (indeed, that's part of what determines a species anyway). It's the same with competition for similar ends. The competitors copy what seems to work elsewhere, so that over time programmes become more alike. Classic FM is seen to be very successful, so Radio 3 has to become more like it, rather than less. Anything that's unusual runs the risk of failure (often accompanied by calls that it's 'elitist').

But this isn't new. In 1964 there was a weekly BBC children's classical music programme on TV - I remember, because I won a prize on it. There were children's quiz programmes such as Top of the Form that always included a question on classical music. Those have long since disappeared as broadcasters have moved closer to one another till a lowest common denominator emerges. No one now would be given the go-ahead for a regular classical music programme on mainstream TV (imagine the reaction if Face the Music were mooted for rebranding).

Yes!!!

[Resurrection Man]

There you go, finding fault in others again.

Is that supposed to be irony or sarcasm?

[ahinton]

And your opinion is better than Simon's? Surely opinions are precisely that. No need for the aggressive post.

The post is only as "aggressive" as you want it to be. My "opinion" being of a different kind altogether to that which Simon expresses, it can be neither better nor worse. Opinions in the guise of value judgements are one thing; personal tastes parading as such opinions are quite another. If Simon doesn't want to make a donation to NMC, that's fine. If others do, so's that. For him to suggest that certain British composers represented on NMC are as he describes them, however, is quite another matter and, if taken seriously, suggests the gross undermining of the tireless sterling work done over many years by the mastermind behind that label - a composer who, incidentally, has only a very small amount of his own work on it - in the cause of new and recent British music.

[ahinton]

the endless repeats of Ghershwn Copland and the like

Who or what is "Ghershwn"? The context suggests that what is meant is not "gherkin" but "Gershwin" but, if so, in what ways is Gershwin "like" Copland? Oh and, by the way, they do repeat Vaughan Williams on that there BBC de temps en temps, you know!...

[MrGongGong]

The post is only as "aggressive" as you want it to be. My "opinion" being of a different kind altogether to that which Simon expresses, it can be neither better nor worse. Opinions in the guise of value judgements are one thing; personal tastes parading as such opinions are quite another. If Simon doesn't want to make a donation to NMC, that's fine. If others do, so's that. For him to suggest that certain British composers represented on NMC are as he describes them, however, is quite another matter and, if taken seriously, suggests the gross undermining of the tireless sterling work done over many years by the mastermind behind that label - a composer who, incidentally, has only a very small amount of his own work on it - in the cause of new and recent British music.

[MrGongGong]

The post is only as "aggressive" as you want it to be. My "opinion" being of a different kind altogether to that which Simon expresses, it can be neither better nor worse. Opinions in the guise of value judgements are one thing; personal tastes parading as such opinions are quite another. If Simon doesn't want to make a donation to NMC, that's fine. If others do, so's that. For him to suggest that certain British composers represented on NMC are as he describes them, however, is quite another matter and, if taken seriously, suggests the gross undermining of the tireless sterling work done over many years by the mastermind behind that label - a composer who, incidentally, has only a very small amount of his own work on it - in the cause of new and recent British music.

[Bryn]

Is that supposed to be irony or sarcasm?

It's an observation that you provided your own rope.

[jean]

Who's Ghershwin Copland anyway?

[ahinton]

Who's Ghershwin Copland anyway?

See #36...

[jean]

Mine was a different point, I think.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

In 1960 he returned to the BBC for an interview with John Freeman in the television series Face to Face. When he visited the BBC to record the programme, work was being undertaken, and Reith noticed with dismay the 'girlie' pin-ups of the workmen. However one picture was of a Henry Moore sculpture. "A Third Programme carpenter, forsooth," he growled.[27]

wicki

he clearly believed in the fuhrer prinzip etc .... but mebbe it takes an ambitious driving bar steward to build up something like a major public corporation, and indirectly i suppose his battle for autonomy transforms into our independent entity ....sort of [independent nah]

[Simon]

It's one you express on these very boards (though in different words) within the past few hours.

Oh dear. That's why I so often don't bother. You do get things wrong, don't you?

"He that has eyes to read and intellect to understand, let him do so."

But Bryn & Co will no doubt just keep posting the same old....

[Simon]

Superb posts by Lat and Pab, previous page.

When people write stuff as good as that, there's no real point in saying much else.

(Actually, I suspect most of the more reasonable of us on here are fairly close in our assessment of much of the stuff going on around us.)