Review of Radio 3

[Honoured Guest]

We also hold that each one of these genres should be for the minority audience which has a special interest in them: ergo it follows that the classical music output - like the output for all the other genres - should in its near entirety be more focused on that small demanding audience. Across the whole of BBC Radio there are various other stations which have a smattering of jazz, world and classical music tweaked for the broader audience, just as Radio 4's drama aims to appeal to a larger audience for radio plays.

As it is, those who have the greatest interest in classical music are the ones who have only a handful of programmes which meet their standards. That is what seems unreasonable to us when, as you have hinted, the BBC has a large portfolio of national music stations, none of which (aside from Radio 3) has any serious classical music programming.

Well, you seem to be advocating a very significant change to the remit for Radio 3 as set out in the service licence. So, not much chance of success, in my opinion.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/music_radio/tor.pdf

[french frank]

Well, you seem to be advocating a very significant change to the remit for Radio 3 as set out in the service licence. So, not much chance of success, in my opinion.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/..._radio/tor.pdf

You could be right. The Trust held a 'public consultation' about the first proposed service licences (with much the same remit for R3). We participated saying we felt it didn't represent the remit of the station and that it was so vague it allowed management to do anything they wanted - which they subsequently did.

The Trust was responsible for the service licence and they're the ones supposed to hold management to account. Instead of which they act as its rubber-stamp.

[Maclintick]

Well, you seem to be advocating a very significant change to the remit for Radio 3 as set out in the service licence. So, not much chance of success, in my opinion.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/..._radio/tor.pdf

The R3 service licence strikes me as perverse. By what inverted logic does the BBC Trust insist that Radio 2 should offer "distinctive" programming, while Radio 3's primary remit is to be "engaging and entertaining"? It would make more sense if R3 were charged with "distinctiveness", in order to prevent it mimicking the predictable playlisting of CFM, while the excellent R2 carries on doing what it has always done extremely well, "entertaining & engaging" its large audience.

On FF's point about the BBC's secrecy in relation to matters where stakeholders such as FoR3 are denied access to documents categorised as "future strategy" on grounds that they are "programming", the Trust's response is transparent sophistry. The circumstances under which FOI requests can be refused are designed to protect journalistic inquiry into specific individuals or organisations, who may learn details of current investigations. E.g. if the Beeb were ever to have the b***s to mount an investigation into corruption at the highest levels in an international sporting body, it would be unusual, to say the least, if the individuals so identified were able to access the programme's content while it was being made. Future strategy documents do not come into the category of "programming".

[Russ]

The R3 service licence strikes me as perverse. By what inverted logic does the BBC Trust insist that Radio 2 should offer "distinctive" programming, while Radio 3's primary remit is to be "engaging and entertaining"? It would make more sense if R3 were charged with "distinctiveness", in order to prevent it mimicking the predictable playlisting of CFM, while the excellent R2 carries on doing what it has always done extremely well, "entertaining & engaging" its large audience.

All the radio service licences are perverse. Anyone from Mars wouldn't have a clue what each station is supposed to do or what is expected of it from the remit given in each licence. Custom and practice for each station has always dominated.

Russ

[french frank]

All the radio service licences are perverse. Anyone from Mars wouldn't have a clue what each station is supposed to do or what is expected of it from the remit given in each licence. Custom and practice for each station has always dominated.

Nicely put. In a nutshell.

Meanwhile I received an email from the Trust this morning re our complaint about the Sound of Cinema season (sent almost a year ago now) and our claim that aspects of it breached the BBC's own editorial guidelines (not the service licence, which as you say allows them to do anything they want). The Trust replied that it is being referred back to Radio 3 as they understood we had been given a response from them via BBC Complaints. We had received it - we'd heard it verbatim on R4 Feedback, directly from Roger Wright and from the person at Radio 3 who conveyed Roger Wright's reply to BBC Complaints in the first place - the same person to whom it is now being referred back.

I have sent a reply to the Trust, saying that we had been through Radio 3, BBC Complaints and finally to the Trust. They were now sending us back down to Radio 3 again. [Kafka lives!]

[Globaltruth]

And, yes, if I do not misunderstand and misrepresent you, we also would like to see the world music output enlarged by the introduction of other long-format global music traditions, accompanied (we would add) by specialist discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI7VeIA7ZI

[french frank]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI7VeIA7ZI

Unkind, Global I thought it would be at least a 24-hour raga ...

[HARRIET HAVARD]

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

I agree with you. I really can't see the point of most of the daily output of R3. While, I would guess the likes of Pet Rock C B-H etc are not the highest paid entertainers at the BEEB, given their contribution to the sum total of human knowledge, surely the limited resources of the channel could be put to better use. Maybe Through the Night could become Through the Day. The night time schedule certainly has more of a R3 feel than does the ClassicFMified day shows: not only in presentational style, but in content.

[DracoM]

<< Then comes an honest understanding of your "offer". There is a realisation that your existing customers are probably the most important and are to be cherished (the opposite to what R3 appear to have concluded). You analyse what parts of your offer will appeal to which segments. In targeting new audiences you are careful not to lose or alienate sections of your existing audience. In particular you understand what your existing audience value about you, and respect what they know and appreciate about you. You are then in a position to refine your offer to them and to new audiences accordingly >>


For me, this section of Richard Tarleton's posting a while back hits a number of nails on heads.

It is a quiet paragraph, but it illuminates at its very core precisely why R3 has failed to understand its role, thus misunderstood how to go about 'delivering' that role / offer - blimey do i HATE that word.

Mr Tarleton has seen very clearly that in attempting to identify their proper audience, understanding that audience, and above all how to engage new audiences, the BBC has started from the position of evaluating what IT has to 'offer', and then set about bludgeoning that audience into appreciating that offer. But the internet etc has totally changed the playing field.

I would be fascinated to know how many For3 listeners now get their musical 'offer' form internet stations OTHER than the BBC on a regular basis. The stations I often use have minimal if ANY trails, minimal guff, they invite emails etc as a standard panel on the site's home pages BUT do not interrupt, and thus shorten playing time by trails, gushing, tweet reminders, nor employ presenters who see themselves as stars to be listened to. The result is that the MUSIC is at the core of everything.

Most of the BBC presenters apart from a core of quiet ones I could name, manifestly see themselves as really TV presenters or DJs but on radio - like many of the R2 presenters. Hence they seem to think they must therefore have an 'image' to cultivate. And in so doing, get between the music and the audience. Tom Service and Petroc Trelawny are prime examples of those who now regularly feature live on stage to introduce concerts /conduct interviews on stage. THEY become the continuing principle in the live concerts, and NOT the theme or thread in the music. R3's whole manner at the moment is to endlessly package music because they are embarrassed by it i.e. without the tinsellly twittering, the music might be too difficult for us, t hey seem to think. It is so monumentally patronising it is breathtaking. BUT it has increasingly become the default format. And in so doing, they diminish, they short circuit the audience engagement, because in essence, what they are getting perilously close to doing is telling us what we should be feeling / thinking before / during / after a performance. For me, that is unforgivably paternalistic and patronising. Contextualise as Martin Handkey usually does so well, yes - I can take that. But the gush of other presenters after the playing is insupportable, telling us what the artists are wearing, the reaction in the hall - bloody hell, we can HEAR the audience, you do not need to tell us. Grrr!!

The BBC / R3 are very keen to tell us what their value is to us. How much they attempt to discover what their listeners actually DO / WOULD value is a moot point.

Attracting new audiences: it can be but rarely is epiphanic. People dip toes, they try out, they come back, they use Youtube to listen online, they maybe download, they may even buy a Cd - decreasingly. BAL is a wonderful series, i would go so far as to say that CD Review is arguably THE core or should be of the R3 offer, particularly since the much lamented demise of CD Masters. Interpretation on Records. If what these adventurers hear is a re-cycled herds of warhorses [much of the daytime 'offer'], they eventually stop listening, because that is not exploration and education, but wallpaper. Is that TRULY what R3 is 'offering'? And if it is, then whatever mantra is current at he BBC. R3 IS competing directly with CFM. The BBC firmly reject that statement, but no-one, and I do mean no-one, believes that. It's a comforting default position for BBC apparatchiks to adopt because it stops them thinking.

BUT in conducting that war with CFM, IMHO, R3 is fighting a war of twenty years ago. CFM is not the unicorn to be slain, it is merely one of many, and the BBC have completely failed to see how to renew their core to suit the new condition. Oil Tanker > turning circle > don;t hold your breath >years not days. I wish Alan Davey well, actually better than that. BUT he must listen NOT to the in-house execs whose jobs depend on maintaining the comfortable status quo, but to the audience he wishes to engage.

And, I'm afraid, i will believe that when i see it.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . I really can't see the point of most of the daily output of R3. . . .

I think it is a good idea here to think back to the twenties of the last century when wireless broadcasting was first established as a new medium. Its purpose then was to enable people to hear concerts and recitals and talks which without it they could not have. Were "Wireless Three" to restrict itself to that function to-day it would still be providing a useful and worthwhile service. There are enough live performances going on around the world to fill up the seven days of the week with ease. The mere spinning of records on the other hand is a secondary matter, hardly needed any longer, and were such spinning to be dropped that would be no great loss.

[muzzer]

These days there are internet stations with no ads or presenters for pretty much every combo/playlist/mood you can name. Praps R3 thinks it has to distinguish itself by going OTT on the live broadcasts, hence encouraging the aforementioned gushing etc. The real problem is that it's patronising its existing audience and failing to attract a new one. In terminal deklein.

[french frank]

The real problem is that it's patronising its existing audience and failing to attract a new one. In terminal deklein.

I'd like to be more positive than that. Cultural changes have presented it (as a cultural broadcaster) and the BBC (which holds the public responsibility) with some problems. It's Radio 3 that has come up with unintelligent (pardon the euphemism) answers which have made the problems worse.

Only what I Reckon, of course.

[Richard Tarleton]

Good piece in today's Times, p.21 - "Populist Radio 3 has worst ratings in 15 years". "Instead of attracting new listeners, [FoR3] contend, it is merely annoying its core audience".

[french frank]

Good piece in today's Times, p.21 - "Populist Radio 3 has worst ratings in 15 years". "Instead of attracting new listeners, [FoR3] contend, it is merely annoying its core audience".

On the Rajar thread. Was just describing the accomapnying cartoon to m'Learned Friend:

R3 announcer (in dinner jacket, of course) says to a bemused Brünnhilde (or whoever) with cowhorn helmet and spear: "After you've finished singing we'll call it a day."

The next obstacle will be to cope with those who want to revive the "Cut back the Third's [Radio 3's] hours" brigade.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the average life expectancy around these parts can not be that long .... perhaps if we sought to formulate what R3 should be after we are gone and why, that might make for a coherent and credible position? presently we are dismissed as old fogeys wanting our youth back .... [guilty as charged in my case]