Trust review published

[french frank]

The most promising FNIMN with Alfie Boe was 2 hours long, appears to have 20 pieces, which include the overture from Ruslan and Ludmila, something called '3rd Mvt Allegro Con Spirito Concerto in E Major' which is perhaps the Hummel and the overture from Die Fledermaus. Last week it was Procol Harum (playing Bach, perchance?) and before that Ron Goodwin.

Next week - Elaine Paige.

[french frank]

And I'd have to say that the more important statistical point which makes the survey a bit of a fluke (notwithstanding the main point about Radio 2) is that of the ten genres mentioned, 'classical' bundles everything together: opera, symphonic, chamber music, song, contemporary - all of which could justifiably be treated as separate genres - whereas the popular music is fragmented. Even with jazz, some people might say, 'There's jazz and jazz'.

[Daniel]

If I may offer a personal opinion ... the intention to make R3 as welcoming as possible is a good one, I think. But I also think that in some programmes, the decision about what is welcoming seems to be in the hands of someone (BBC executive/executives?) who believes it means unchallenging and bland. Even if that approach did open the doors of classical music to greater numbers of people (which I really doubt), it is already available on other commercial classical channels, so copying it seems like an unnecessary and quite pointless compromise.

Obviously cultures evolve and and so does the way people present information, but whenever I've heard Breakfast (admittedly rarely) it feels to me not completely dissimilar from someone in a midlife crisis experimenting with teenage clothing. Nothing wrong with that of course, but you can't necessarily expect the nation to want you to join them in their front room every morning.

[french frank]

I've just been reading all the 'supporting evidence' on which the Trust based its findings. One of the Audience Councils wrote: "Many respondents felt [...] it sometimes “tries too hard” to appeal and “gets the tone wrong”. This view was not limited to older listeners. Is this the best tactic for replenishing the audience?"

The word 'welcoming', like 'accessible', is a bit of a weasel word. The immediate reaction is: "That's good" - until you discover what it means in practice. Who is being welcomed? And what kind of welcome will they appreciate?

[Daniel]

Sure, 'welcoming' as a word can be turned to almost any purpose you want, but I guess that's true of almost any word. I would define my use of it above as intending to mean as-non-unwittingly-supercilious-as-possible-to-whomever-is-listening ... I can't think why I didn't use such elegant terminology in the first place. I think the intention of presentation should be to be clear and intelligent, not to go out of its way to please.

While I'm here, I'll add that I'm impressed the way you analyse available statistics and information from the BBC and argue your cause persuasively. I would find it very hard to be so dispassionate in the face of such a repetitively unyielding situation.