Friends of Radio Three?

[french frank]

I think that is what is called "pulling rank". Since you're such great mates with Roger Wright do you care to tell me what he thinks of Fo3's aims these days?

Well, on the webcast where he contradicted Mark Damazer (that was a month or two ago) who said we wanted nothing but classical music, that all the speechy stuff should be on Radio 4, that we thought jazz shouldn't be on Radio 3 and that 'the world music thing' interrupted our diet of classical music what RW started by saying was, well, to be fair that's not what that group is saying. He pointed out that we adhered to the Third Programme 'heritage' (his word) - which, of course, included 'speechy stuff', and jazz. World music came later - and as you can see this forum - which is for Radio 3 listeners, not FoR3 supporters - includes a board for people whose interest is world music. Bear in mind that 90% of those who post here regularly are not on the list of supporters EA linked to. I do consider them to be a good cross section of the R3 listenership.

So that is what he understands. And what prompted Mark Damazer's comments was RW's comment that he/Radio 3 wondered from time to time whether Radio 3 should be narrower, and just have classical music. But that is not what Radio 3's service licence calls for; nor is it what the group wants.

Look back at my Msg #23 to the 2011 quote of Stephen Moss. That contains the nub of what many listeners, not only FoR3 think. Our own views have also been echoed by the music industry who have criticised Radio 3 for much the same reasons.

But, tell me what you think. I'm afraid my haggis is due out of the oven atm, but I will willingly respond later (if still capable) to any other points that you wish to make.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

[QUOTE=Resurrection Man;253763]

[Gordon]

I think talcum is doing very well for himself

Careful there RM we would not want to bully anyone or damage their self esteem now would we?

Having said that perhaps the world looks more amenable at the bottom of a hole, ask any Hobbit. It does mean of course that people will always look down on you, so best get out really and face them directly.

[Gordon]

Being a occasional Radio 3 listener I have only just some across your message boards and decided to google you. Does anybody care to comment on the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004...adcasting.arts

You asked for “comment” so, assuming you mean what you say, here is some on the specifics you chose to post here. They are bit forensic [ie boring] compared to others’ responses so far so I apologise in advance for acting out of character and using moderate language.

Interesting but rather old reference that. I often wondered why that journalist had written it at all. One has the impression that the editor had a space problem that day.

.."Who are these friends? There are only about four of them. They're just not being rational. They hog our messageboards, they bully people, they're elitist."

Now why did the journalist choose to quote just the one “insider” I wonder when he could have made contact with any number of BBC people, officially or otherwise, and got a range of views? Also why did the journalist choose hyperbolic language? Do I hear the sound of a grinding axe? I know for certain that there are [were in this case] quite a few sympathetic “insiders” who think/thought along FoR3 lines but they dare not say so in public and certainly not to a newspaper. BBC policy about talking to the press? So this “insider” had to be very senior or feel authorised to make that statement knowing that it would be quoted even if unattributed. Does one person speak for the whole BBC? Yes, if they are the source of policy but even then it would have to go through process.

Specifics:
“Rational”: means something amenable to reason. FoR3 folk think there are good reasons underlying their position. The ”insider” appears to disagree. That doesn’t make FoR3 irrational. What he/she means is that he/she doesn’t like FoR3 [which he/she is fully entitled to do] because they don’t agree with his/her views.

“they hog message boards”: At that time the BBC itself supported lots of message boards and the R3 one was a small part of the whole. How can one small group “hog” such a massive entity? If you go back to those old message boards there is debate about the issue of R3 content and it was by no means universal that people agreed with what became FoR3. Much of the correspondence was about the same things you see on this board, some of it was even complimentary as it is now. Hogging the board? I don’t think so. You need to go back and look at them and see for yourself.

“Bullying”: making someone’s life a misery by preying on their inability to defend themselves. Are you telling me that message boarders don’t have a choice or cannot form and defend their own views? Unlike a school playground or the public streets people have a choice about where they spend their browsing. They are not in fear of being physically abused either. “Bullying” in this context is an inappropriate choice of word.

“Elitist” The best. The Aristos. Aha! the old put down for anything one doesn’t like because “toffs” [aristocrats?] do it etc. The old British perennial Class Card, works every time. I doubt that Alex Ferguson would think of himself as elitist for wanting the best team money can buy. Or any Man U fan either, they want to win and that means being The Best. Would you like your GP or consultant surgeon to be average at what they do? Do you want to have The Best governing the country? [don’t answer that]. Do you expect that people actually WANT mediocrity from choice? Our Olympic medallists showed what aspiration can do. Maybe the word has had its meaning changed by being used as a derogatory term rather than the original?

In amongst all the things that the BBC does with its £3.5Billion+ revenues very little of it is “elitist”. Unless you mean that East Enders is the “best”, the elite of its kind? The air waves are full of populist material – right and proper since it is funded by the majority. Out of that 3.5B plus R3 costs peanuts. I could agree that R3 was elitist if it used up a far greater proportion of funds. Or if it used up a much greater proportion of the radio spectrum than any other BBC Service. It doesn’t. FoR3 isn’t asking that everyone MUST watch/listen to what they want, just that R3 should do what a serious Arts channel should do which is debatable and FoR3 has a voice in that debate. There is ample choice on other networks for popular music – some would say excessive choice. Where, other than CFM with its more populist approach, does any person interested in the Arts get a radio service sourced in the UK? Where is the choice in serious arts listening? “Elitism”? I don’t think so.

Perhaps the serious Arts are Ghetto-ised by the bulk of the population who are fearful that they may catch something unspeakable if they get into contact with it? OR, God forbid, that they have to work at their listening? Most of us brought up on the Old Third valued that incentive to work at learning about the classics. “Accessible” is the latest watchword – everything at least effort. Perhaps we are now required to “work” at say Late Junction? I for one do not feel that need but perhaps many R3 regulars do or perhaps they turn off and others turn on from another channel? Neither do I wish to work at unctious homilies from the breakfast show – there is no substance to it. So the result for me is that I get to hear less of why I tune in and others get something they value instead but that something does not seem to me to be worth the effort of working at – I know I’ve tried. Do I feel angry? No, I just feel disappointed in having no other choice.

And Roger Wright: "I've had contact with these people over a long time. We arranged a meeting to discuss their concerns. I expected a hundred people to march on Broadcasting House. Two turned up and even they couldn't agree whether jazz was any good. They are a lobby group and there is no evidence that they are representative of our 2.3 million listeners. They are looking to return to a world that probably never existed."

Ah yes Mr Right. So did you expect him to say “I completely agree with FoR3 I shall change my work of many years at R3 tomorrow”. As controller he has the responsibility of delivering a music/arts channel which in itself would be considered by some as “elitist” to start with. His idea of the channel is more eclectic than previous controllers. He’s doing his job as he and the Trust sees it. He will not change that view and will not be moved from it until there is a change in policy and guess who forms that policy? He is required by the Trust to make the channel “more accessible” ie attract more listeners [not really happening, his losing and gaining seem to balance out]. When I started as a listener such notions were unthought of.

.."They made contact on Radio 3 messageboards, using a code to identify each other."

If you mean pseudonyms then that’s the way most message boards work. There are trolls of course that masquerade for the purpose of mischief. There is none of that business on this site now is there? Can you give [the journalist didn’t] an example of what you mean by “code”? What purpose would communicating in “code” serve?

Who are you people?

People who value a serious Arts channel and some are people who wish for some serious Science in the channel, any channel actually, too. There are always going to be few such people. R3 is the only radio channel that the BBC seems capable of running that caters for the fringes [ie the non populist]. In among all the other resources the BBC operates why so little to contain so much that is not mainstream? Why can’t the BBC find some room in all that space for just one channel with some intellectual bite to it? Why can’t it find more room for other non mainstream music genres?

The Opus Dei of the classical world?

No. That post is held by much greater beings whose powers far exceed that of mere mortals. Some of them live under rickety rackety bridges and prey on little goats, the bullies that they are.

The freemasons?

Sadly not, at least they have influence in high places. But if you need to be let off speeding fine….just send a coded message here using the key phrase “LetOffs’R’Us” but be sure to have your shirt off and your trousers rolled up as you post it [ladies should do this in private].

Whatever it is it sounds like every other fanatical cult I've ever heard of.
If you’re the friends of Radio 3 it certainly doesn't need any enemies.

“Fanatical” “cult”? Neither apply to my understanding of what the authors of FoR3 are about. There is no original unassailable text or ritual, they don’t blow people up or burn them because they disagree. No sinister knocks at the door at 3 AM. No secret satanic rituals at the grave of Lord Reith – too dangerous anyway he’s spinning too fast. Even Roger is surprised that they don’t demonstrate in front of his office. Strange behaviour for fanatics.

R3, and the BBC for that matter, already has its enemies simply because it exists and those enemies will erode its values if allowed to do so by a BBC that has lost its nerve under attack. R3 will always be a dumping ground for non-mainstream music that the other controllers don’t want. Why are people who are trying to defend certain values enemies of those values? You speak as if FoR3 are a real threat to the channel!! Mr Right has made it clear that they are not. He has his 2.3M listeners so what does he care, pile it high sell it cheap, after all serious Arts really are a commodity aren’t they? All FoR3 can hope to do is occasionally make him think twice about making it worse still.

[Thropplenoggin]

“Fanatical” “cult”? Neither apply to my understanding of what the authors of FoR3 are about. There is no original unassailable text or ritual, they don’t blow people up or burn them because they disagree. No sinister knocks at the door at 3 AM. No secret satanic rituals at the grave of Lord Reith – too dangerous anyway he’s spinning too fast. Even Roger is surprised that they don’t demonstrate in front of his office. Strange behaviour for fanatics.

An early entry for the inaugural and soon to be much-coveted Riposte of the Year Award. Gets my vote, anyhoo.

[Bryn]

Sorry, but anyone turning up with a pseudonym that is a very poor attempt at lampooning Calum/Malcolm MacDonald is, for me, beneath contempt.

[Quarky]

FF msge#31
Afraid I had difficulty following tha message -getting mixed up with we's, he's and groups.

If you have a mo' after your haggis, would you kindly spell out your message so that not so well-informed people as myself can understand?

Anyhow, iPlayer as far as i am concerned creates a whole new ball-game.

[Beef Oven]

Sorry, but anyone turning up with a pseudonym that is a very poor attempt at lampooning Calum/Malcolm MacDonald is, for me, beneath contempt.

That's not his real name?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Why has the OP been addressed to this Forum?

This is a public forum for all with an interest in Radio 3, not the official messageboard of Friends of Radio 3

... as it says on the Home Page.

[gurnemanz]

I'm thinking of starting a new cult forum called "Friend of Friends of Radio 3". Jesuits, Freemasons and fanatics will be especially welcome but membership will be limited to only four people.

[french frank]

Actually, I'm quite enjoying this thread. As people here will agree, we don't often focus specifically on FoR3. The article is written with journalistic hyperbole. I know the style quite well - journalists always want a good story.

We 'launched an attack'. We were'as mad as hell'. Want to know what that was all about? We noticed that Radio 3's Statement of Programme Policy, recently published, had dropped its age-long commitment to classical music. Radio 3 broadcast 'classical, jazz and world music'. Everything else was about 'a broad range of music'. Of helping listeners to understand each other (something like that). This was at the time when non-classical programmes had been tripled and all the talk was that Radio 3 was 'not just a classical station'. It never was, of course, but it did always have a particular commitment to classical music.

We wrote in to query this and produced what was (I think) our only press release. Never again. We pointed to a factual issue, we expressed our 'concern' [sic] - and that made us 'as mad as hell'. It was an 'attack'. It wasn't intended to be - the point was seemingly taken and ever since then the statement of programme policy has had that commitment reinstated. So had the new service licences, first issued in 2006/7. Classical music is the 'core proposition'.

On the matter of speaking in "code". A complete misunderstanding(?) by the journalist. Old hands will remember the days when we weren't allowed to add web links to the messageboards. We set up our website but weren't allowed to tell anyone the address. If we mentioned FoR3 in a post it was removed (I still have the email notifications). We were told they broke House Rules as they contained 'material of a commercial nature'. No matter that nothing was for sale, no money was changing hands.

We resorted to stratagems to tell people the site existed, and if they were spotted, they were removed.

As for 'only two turned up'. Yes, because we were asked how many would attend and we made it clear that two would attend to speak for the group. We couldn't contact each other than on the open boards (not allowed to give contact addresses by the rules), and we spent two months hammering out - in public - the main points that we agreed on. Two were going to put those points and we thought if a whole crowd went we would end up with people talking about their personal likes and dislikes and disagreeing with each other, rather than sticking to the general agreement. The two of us submitted our names in advance, for our visitor passes, so it's hard to understand why more than two were expected.

My opinion (unsupported) was that the 'enraged BBC insider' was a) not enraged and b) the Press office spokeswoman for Radio 3.

[french frank]

FF msge#31
Afraid I had difficulty following tha message -getting mixed up with we's, he's and groups.

If you have a mo' after your haggis, would you kindly spell out your message so that not so well-informed people as myself can understand?

Sorr-ee, I think 'he' on every occasion is RW (who was defending 'us'. 'We' meant the group FoR3.

Rank pouring alert! I did email RW afterwards to thank him for trying to put the message straight, and he expressed himself 'relieved' that he had done so to our satisfaction

The only mystery is where do so many get the impression that we are some sort of extremists from? We are only extremely moderate, coherent and consistent: we take a wide view that gives many interests a fair bite at the cherry; why do so many peddle the views that we're not?

And we do fight for R3. Who else even bothers to find out that R3 now costs less than any other BBC network station, and projected to continue to be so? And who else wants to challenge that?

[scottycelt]

I'm thinking of starting a new cult forum called "Friend of Friends of Radio 3". Jesuits, Freemasons and fanatics will be especially welcome but membership will be limited to only four people.

Pretty swift 'goodbye' to Freemasons and fanatics, then ... ?

[JFLL]

You asked for “comment” so, assuming you mean what you say, here is some on the specifics you chose to post here.

I agree with everything you say, and would like to add this about populism vs. elitism in the arts. One could argue that ‘populism’ in the provision of the arts is actually more elitist than ‘elitism’, because populists believe that ordinary people – unlike themselves, who are well-educated, cultured, etc. – are not capable of responding to what may be difficult, for instance much classical music, and so must be given a watered-down version, ‘classical lite’ (à la Classic FM), with difficulties smoothed away (‘Smooth Classics’). Whereas an elitist is less inclined to make such assumptions as to the abilities of ordinary people, but believes he/she should be given the best without compromise. Which image of the ordinary person is the more ‘elitist’?

[Nick Armstrong]

I agree with everything you say, and would like to add this about populism vs. elitism in the arts. One could argue that ‘populism’ in the provision of the arts is actually more elitist than ‘elitism’, because populists believe that ordinary people – unlike themselves, who are well-educated, cultured, etc. – are not capable of responding to what may be difficult, for instance much classical music, and so must be given a watered-down version, ‘classical lite’ (à la Classic FM), with difficulties smoothed away (‘Smooth Classics’). Whereas an elitist is less inclined to make such assumptions as to the abilities of ordinary people, but believes he/she should be given the best without compromise. Which image of the ordinary person is the more ‘elitist’?

Spot on, JFLL - a point I've often thought about and which you put better than I have been doing in my head!