Review of Radio 3

[french frank]

The BBC Trust has just announced the launch of its review and public consultation on the BBC radio music stations (including Radio 3, of course!). Details here. As last time (2011), FoR3 will be submitting its own response, but individual listeners are free to participate.

[amateur51]

The BBC Trust has just announced the launch of its review and public consultation on the BBC radio music stations (including Radio 3, of course!). Details here. As last time (2011), FoR3 will be submitting its own response, but individual listeners are free to participate.

What action was taken as a result of the previous review, I wonder?

[french frank]

What action was taken as a result of the previous review, I wonder?

Well, unbeknown to anyone when they responded, Radio 3 management submitted its own proposals - as part of the review - to continue with its strategy of making the station more 'accessible and welcoming to new listeners'. After considering all the evidence with its blind eye, the Trust report gave management the go-ahead. RadioCentre, for one, wrote to the BBC Chairman to express its disappointment with the decision, and criticised the fact that the proposals weren't published (and still haven't been) so that the public could be consulted on them. The first anyone knew of their existence was when the Trust published its report, having already accepted them.

We and RadioCentre both made requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the proposals to be published (i.e. what were the future plans for Radio 3?) but the request was refused by the BBC on the grounds that it was exempt information, since it related to 'programming'.

[french frank]

Opinions would be useful:

You'll remember that back in 2007 Radio 3 announced that it would be discontinuing all live concerts. The news was leaked to the press by people within Radio 3 who were shocked by the news. This was the start of the 'studio-based' edited concerts, cut to fit into the fixed evening time slot, starting at 7pm.

The listener reception was hostile (and there was an Early Day Motion tabled in the House of Commons!). The result was that in 2011 the policy was completely reversed: from 'no live concerts', it went to 'a live concert every evening'.

There was a suspicion that in order to avoid the accusation of a U-turn - just returning to the previous situation - the concerts 'every night' enabled the BBC to sell it as 'something new'. This was confirmed when Roger Wright commented:

'Wright denied that this move was a U-turn. "You can't do a U-turn to something you had never done before," he said. The number of live evening broadcasts, he said, would now be increased to unprecedented levels.'

So, the question is this: Given that the BBC is making savage cuts - and Radio 3 seems already to have been targeted - the latest listening figures might make the Executive even keener to keep Radio 3's costs down. The gradual expansion of the Proms (paid for by Radio 3) and the increased live concert coverage could possibly be affecting the quality of the rest of the schedule.

if that's the case, would listeners think that it is worth reducing the live concert broadcasts to pre-2007 levels, and seeing the Proms concentrate on quality rather than size? Any thoughts or queries?

[Honoured Guest]

Does it cost more to broadcast a live concert than to record a concert and later broadcast a 'studio-based' edited concert? I doubt it.

The musical content and costs of live concerts are very similar to those of the 'studio-based' edited concerts, aren't they?

The purpose of the change was to gain the distinctive experience of listening live to a concert as it happens.

One scheduling feature of the move to live concerts was that the nightly speech and specialist music programmes were shunted 45 minutes later.

[french frank]

Does it cost more to broadcast a live concert than to record a concert and later broadcast a 'studio-based' edited concert? I doubt it. The musical content and costs of live concerts are very similar to those of the 'studio-based' edited concerts, aren't they?

Not sure about that, but with the amount of recorded material that is already available to Radio 3 it wouldn't be necessary to be recording new concerts for deferred transmission.

The purpose of the change was to gain the distinctive experience of listening live to a concert as it happens.

Which Radio 3 already did, prior to 2007 - just not every night of the week. I don't recall that anyone suggested that it would be an improvement to increase the number of live concerts. But that is the question I'm asking: do people feel that it would be a significant loss to the station to retreat to the pre-2007 level, if Radio 3 has to find something to cut?

One scheduling feature of the move to live concerts was that the nightly speech and specialist music programmes were shunted 45 minutes later.

And the removal of the Sunday night play to 10.00pm - which I doubt increased its audience.

[Frances_iom]

I suspect R3 as we knew it will at best revert to an evening only channel (+ possibly carry Music through the night in the 1am to 6am shift) if it remains on FM - my guess will become digital only with a much poorer bit rate - the day will 'descend' towards a R2.25 ie easy listening for the over 40's with phone ins etc;

Re concerts without knowing the cost breakdown between the cost of techies + live presenters vs the MU fees difficult to say just how much can be saved - I've always suggested a much better liason with EBU to take (possibly deferred) concerts from various European stations that still 'do' live broadcasts and then 're-present' them in English but again Musician fees may make this unattractive

ETA - my preference for a complete (tho deferred) concert is that the logic that went to the programming remains, the actual performance + audience reation are also important - near half a century ago when I was briefly associated with BBC many outside broadcasts carried any commentary as a sep channel so that the event + crowd ambience could be used for other purposes/stations - if the EBU supplied in this format than 'representing' would be almost seamless

[french frank]

I think Rajar results like the last ones are going to give the Executive food for thought.

But, as a reminder of life before 2007, I looked at March 2001:

All weekends were Live from the Met on Sats and the play on Sundays. Then, as far as I could work out there were 9 live weekday concerts, 8 recorded concerts and 5 were recorded recitals. One of the live concerts was opera from the ROH. The recorded 'Performance on 3' broadcasts included an evening devoted to the legacy of Sviatoslav Richter.

Just thinking - some of the (EBU) TTNs consist of complete concerts. We now probably have better coverage of opera since the regular LftMet days.

[bb]

Our mutual friend considers that more live broadcasts by the BBC orchestras on Radio 3 are essential to their long term survival.

[Russ]

I'm trying to see the wood from the trees in this review.

Assuming that "BBC's network music radio" (the stated scope of the current review) is purely the BBC's shorthand way of encapsulating a number of stations, there is some logic from a BBC perspective in reviewing R3 alongside R1, R1X, R2, 6Music and Asian Network. I do wonder though whether all the current review will attract will be a disparate and tangential set of ultimately unresolvable comments from supporters/detractors/critics/fans of the individual stations concerned. (And regardless of however articulate and well-intentioned those submitted comments might be.)

Tactically, therefore, is it good strategy to talk up one's favourite station or be critical of it? Supportive comment would seem to make sense if the BBC wants to assess the relative qualities of the stations for the purposes of apportioning station budgets, but it makes far less sense if the BBC wants to assess the merits of a particular station. Which of these games is afoot?

Russ

P.S. There is a secondary aspect in as much as the review-group logic is shaky in respect of a comparative assessment of the non-music elements of the stations, R3 perhaps being the most prominent in respect of non-music content, because there is probably a significant shared demographic between R3 with R4/R4X, as was the case with the previous review. For the sake of the 'music' thrust of this thread, I'm not going to pursue that secondary matter at the moment.

[french frank]

I'm trying to see the wood from the trees in this review.

Assuming that "BBC's network music radio" (the stated scope of the current review) is purely the BBC's shorthand way of encapsulating a number of stations, there is some logic from a BBC perspective in reviewing R3 alongside R1, R1X, R2, 6Music and Asian Network.

Last time it was reviewed alongside Radio 4 and Radio 7 (4Extra). So it seems to be the only one being reviewed again.

I do wonder though whether all the current review will attract will be a disparate and tangential set of ultimately unresolvable comments from supporters/detractors/critics/fans of the individual stations concerned. (And regardless of however articulate and well-intentioned those submitted comments might be.)

Like last time the guidelines seem to be fairly narrow: there are particular things they want to know, which they focus their questions on; other issues they don't mention and it will probably be up to individuals to cram everything into an 'Is there anything else you want to say?' question.

Tactically, therefore, is it good strategy to talk up one's favourite station or be critical of it? Supportive comment would seem to make sense if the BBC wants to assess the relative qualities of the stations for the purposes of apportioning station budgets, but it makes far less sense if the BBC wants to assess the merits of a particular station. Which of these games is afoot?

My feeling was that on balance the organisations (including FoR3) wanted to be as supportive as possible. This is why many felt let down when they discovered Radio 3's strategy (which is what people complained about) was to continue and before anyone knew anything about it, the Trust presented it as a fait accompli: no consultation, no discussion - and still the detail of the proposals is secret.

P.S. There is a secondary aspect in as much as the review-group logic is shaky in respect of a comparative assessment of the non-music elements of the stations, R3 perhaps being the most prominent in respect of non-music content, because there is probably a significant shared demographic between R3 with R4/R4X, as was the case with the previous review. For the sake of the 'music' thrust of this thread, I'm not going to pursue that secondary matter at the moment.

It does seem to be the music programming that is creating most comment - love it or hate it.

[johnb]

if that's the case, would listeners think that it is worth reducing the live concert broadcasts to pre-2007 levels, and seeing the Proms concentrate on quality rather than size? Any thoughts or queries?

For me there is no problem at all in going back to pre-2007 evening concerts, i.e a mix of live and "as live" concert broadcasts. In fact it might be preferable as it would give much more flexibility for the R3 programme planners, instead of being constrained by having to select from what is being performed live every evening.

I'm not sure whether there would be significant savings though.

[french frank]

I'm not sure whether there would be significant savings though.

There may be no savings between transmitting Concert A live and recording the same concert for later broadcast - but I mentioned some of the complete EBU concerts which are included in TTN. I don't know whether the contract is that the concerts are made available on condition that they're used for TTN only - and thus heard in many other countries. But there might also be 'BBC Legends' material. I also rather liked the idea of the 'special evenings' devoted to a particular subject (like the Sviatoslav Richter event): that seems to be more manageable than three weeks Total Immersion. It would make a more balanced schedule in my view, but the question is whether R3 listeners feel Live in Concert seven times weekly is worth maintaining/fighting for, if necessary.

I might well get back into the habit of listening to the Sunday play if it were returned to the 8pm slot, rather than being displaced by the live concert ... but that's only a personal view and is of no special importance

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

is R3 a Radio Station so fixed schedules and milestones &c with personalities and chat &c or a broadcast arts service specialising in music, drama literature and ideas? a very important distinction to make in my way of looking at things .... from my reading [i stand open to correction] of Carpenter's history the Third Programme began as a broadcast arts service and has had continual interference ever since from BBC types who think it is a radio station .... it is entirely fitting that the British Broadcasting Corp should have a radio and digital arts service but in this modern age must it be a] platform (radio) dependent and therefore b) restricted to sound since cross platform visual technology could add immeasurably to the content .... one might wonder why we are even considering radio in the 21C

[Petrushka]

For me there is no problem at all in going back to pre-2007 evening concerts, i.e a mix of live and "as live" concert broadcasts. In fact it might be preferable as it would give much more flexibility for the R3 programme planners, instead of being constrained by having to select from what is being performed live every evening.

I'm not sure whether there would be significant savings though.

I was just about to reply in similar vein but johnb has got there first. I would welcome 'as live' concerts being broadcast in their entirety on certain evenings, not chopped up into little bits as on Afternoon on 3. I would greatly welcome complete archive concerts too.

On the whole, my view is that R3 programming needs to lose it's strict adherence to a rigid schedule and go back to a more flexible way of broadcasting.