Cast your vote

[Anna]

It appears that the project was designed to 'hook' new listeners (evidence: trailers with a popular feel to their presentation); consequently there was much duplication with individual movements performed, e.g on Breakfast. This ignored the needs of the substantial audience that listens all day (or most of it) to Radio3, for whom tedium set in. Likewise more programmes setting Mozart in the context of contemporaries with commentary highlighting the innovations he created and other differences from contemporaneous composition.

This could have been alleviated by making the programmes - or at least a selection - available for longer than seven days on iPlayer. There is also a good argument for spreading such a project over a longer period - six weekends perhaps.

To keep this thread on topic. I cannot believe R3 thought they would attrace new listeners with this. As kb says, it's just so tedious and enough to have any new listener switching back to Classic FM or a cd for a bit of variety. Spread over several weekends I would have been more favourable to it.

I confess I have never been a fan of Mozart (which of course enters into it) but I did greatly enjoy the Beethoven Experience (but he is my favourite composer), plus I remember from Beethoven they had some pretty good downloads available. In fact, over the 12 days I have never listened to so little R3. As I said previously, on another thread, I think the listening figures will be interesting, perhaps I will be proved wrong and it's been a huge success?

As to the King James' Bible, I could put up with any number of days entirely devoted to readings from it.

[doversoul1]

1. Most interviews/discussions with the guests have been very interesting. I hope R3 will keep up with this when things are back to normal now that it has proved what it can.
   
2. The incessant trailers! These alone often made me turn the radio off.
   
3. I would have liked to hear more about Mozart in the context of musical history: the works by those who came before him, his contemporaries and those who came after him.
   
4. Development of musical instruments would have been interesting.
   
5. Just a thought: Mozart in literature might have made an interesting addition.
   
6. Mozart and Jazz?

Whatever Radio3 did or didn’t, this has been far, far too long to broadcast one composer’s work and no one else’s. I’ll join the queue of those who have listened to Rdio3 less in the past 12 days than usual.

[VodkaDilc]

I have not listened to R3 during this period. I rarely listen to Mozart, I have hardly played any of his music and the only Mozart performances I've been to in the last 30+ years are a couple of Magic Flutes.
Wall-to-wall Bach was a wonderful idea, but for me Mozart is the wrong composer. (I realise that this is a personal opinion and that I am missing out on some wonderful experiences.)

[Richard Tarleton]

Plus:
I heard some excellent programmes - e.g. Suzy Klein talking to Neville Marriner, plus several interesting interviews.
There were lots of good performances both live and recorded.
It was good to hear some vintage recordings of the sort that one seldom hears in their entirety these days.
I thought it was well put together, with a light touch.

Minus
The "completist" side of it passed me by altogether. How could it not? I never listen through the night, everyone has to eat and sleep, some of us (including me) have to work - so I didn't listen to more R3 than I usually do and (obviously) missed most of it. It just meant, whenever I turned the radio on, it was Mozart.

I heard lots of short pieces I did not know, but overall cannot say I made any major discoveries, or that my (very positive) view of Mozart has changed.

I am left with a feeling of: "What exactly was the point?" The station can say it broadcast every note, but nobody has listened to it all unless they recorded it - perhaps some have. Something a bit trainspotterish about the whole thing.

[Andrew Slater]

This Mozart mania is clearly the product of a marketing megalomaniac with more power than sense.

If this were not the case we would not have been subjected to 288 continuous hours of one composer's output, which nobody could possibly take in; it would have been spread out, ideally in 2- to 4- hour programmes each week for a year. (But then the publicity impact would have been negligible.)

The subject could have been treated in a more serious, organised manner, with bespoke programmes and full advance information, so that the LISTENERS could obtain full benefit from it.

The way in which it has been done gives scant thought to informing the LISTENERS; rather it seems to be a rush to get through everything for its own sake, to tick boxes labelled 'innovation'. I would go as far as interpreting it as an actual insult to the audience.

I can't imagine that it will pick up significant numbers of new listeners, if that was one of its intentions. It might attract a few additional casual listeners for two weeks of the 12- or 13- week RAJAR survey period, to boost the figures slightly, but they're unlikely to stay, after the Mozart stops (I hope).

I can only hope that the forthcoming service licence review will put a stop to such daft stunts, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't know much Mozart, and well - thought out programming throughout the year would have been a good opportunity to find out more. However, the idea of blitz programming (together without adequate advance information) meant that I haven't listened at all during the last 11 days. The one thing that it has revealed to me is that I haven't missed Radio 3 at all. Where's the incentive to return? (There doesn't seem to be anything in the next few days that isn't run-of-the-mill.)

Next week, when the dust has settled, I'll try to put together a printable listing of as much retrospective information as becomes available on the R3 web site, and post it in the usual place - www.mediafire.com/Radio-Lists.

[StephenO]

I've loved most of what I've heard, although I've cheated a bit by interspersing the Mozart with CDs of other composers, notably Mahler and Strauss. Also little things like work and sleep have meant I've had to miss quite a lot. I think the whole idea was an excellent one, though, and I enjoyed it far more than I did the wall-to-wall Bach. Admittedly there've been a number of low points (I could have done without SM-P "Playing Mozart for Me" every night and have been reduced to shouting at the radio more than once durng the trailers) but, for me, the highs have more than made up for that. There've been some fascinating interviews and excellent opera performances and it was good to have the chance to hear Mozart's rarely performed Masonic pieces.

How about a Haydn Fest next year?

[decantor]

While I sympathise with those who found the style samey-samey, I must say that I've enjoyed the Fest. I find Mozart's music joyous and life-affirming, and the 10 hours or so daily that I've heard has been like a harbinger of Spring. There has been rather more talk/chat than I expected, but much of it has been enlightening. My daily music practice has suffered a bit when I've been unable to drag myself away from the radio. But I do have some reservations:

1) I never, ever, ever want to hear the phrase "The Genius of Mozart" again. Let's just take it as read (or not, if you prefer).

2) 12 days is probably too long - and it seems to have happened because of the number of repeats: even on limited listening, for example, I heard K330 three times, and frequent chunks of Symphony 40. Yes, performance comparisons are interesting, but the repeats were not presented in a way to facilitate comparisons, which belong in a Build-a-Lib context anyway, rather than a Fest.

3) There was something haphazard about the organisation throughout - a feeling I have, rather than an analytical conclusion.

And one final and very personal point - SHOCK-HORROR alert! I have loved having 12 days of music totally devoid of Brahms, Mahler, Strauss, Wagner, and others who tell their story on unmanageably huge and tumultuous canvases. The rest to my system has been welcome. Thank you, Wolfgang and Auntie.

Much though I've enjoyed the Mozart, I believe the Beeb should be wary of the Fest format. It is so hard to satisfy all listeners, and I'm not convinced that it does the composer any great favours. Haydn never expected anyone to listen to all his symphonies in the space of a week - I'm sure he would have giggled at the thought!

[Simon]

Well, even if I hadn't liked it till now - which I largely have - it would have been worth it to me for Po3 tonight (Tuesday 11th). Colin Lawson is always excellent, straight and down to earth and he puts things over brilliantly and there was an excellent variety. But then came the Jupiter with dear old Britten - well, what an AMAZING performance that was! I'd never heard it before but I hope to get it. Fantastic!!

[VodkaDilc]

Almost 70% consider the Mozart "Festival" a bad or terrible idea! This can't be the reaction that R3 expected.

[Suffolkcoastal]

The whole idea was totally daft, and the programming messy. A long weekend would have worked better, and as I mentioned on the other thread that this could have also worked better if Mozart's music could have been compared and contrasted with the music of his contemporaries. The programming was marred by sometimes having the same work more than once on the same day and sometimes extracts from that work as well! The SMP thing was embarrasing and like CFM at its worse.Some of the more interesting works were broadcast during the night, again you could have put a day together discussing these works during the year. The more interesting discussions don't need to be part of any 'composer fest' these sort of programmes should be part of R3s programming throughout the year.

Too much continual exposure to any composers music can make it repetitive especially a composer of the 'classical' era as so much of the music is written to a formal and stylistic formula, though great composers such as Mozart and FJ Haydn can rise above this in their best works the classical style is still a self-limiting one that can sound more repetitive than music of other eras if one is continually exposed to it.

[Simon]

Almost 70% consider the Mozart "Festival" a bad or terrible idea! This can't be the reaction that R3 expected.

We should remember, though, that that is the percentage of people posting here on this MB - highly unlikely to be representative of any wider population. "Out there" it may have been much more successful in terms of getting people interested, if that was the general idea. We were interested already, so we weren't really the market aimed at, perhaps?

[french frank]

We were interested already, so we weren't really the market aimed at, perhaps?

True. But arguably Radio 3 should be broadcasting programmes that will appeal to its audience. Isn't that its prime responsibility?

The controller said that the idea was to illustrate what Radio 3 does on a day-to-day basis, but

a) the Radio 3 audience knows what R3 does on a day-to-day basis and

b) it isn't anything like what it does on a day-to-day basis.

[salymap]

The soppy introductions in soppy voices spoilt it for me. Also the single movements of a work, sometimes followed on the same day by the complete work. I did discover some wonderful,new to me, chamber music, particularly some wind and piano works like K452. I still love Mozart but need a rest from him.

[kernelbogey]

[...] the biggest flaw in the concept is a false assumption of listening routines and patterns:

• either one is always able to be awake and able to listen at the times when works one wants to hear are being broadcast (listen again is not yet robust enough to take up the slack), or
• one can dip in and out of a composer (like Mozart) because it hardly matters what one happens to catch.

For example, suppose I wanted to study the symphonies (or, say the concerti for instruments other than piano). I'd then have had to follow such an unusual listening pattern as both would have been impossible and which renders the idea of making everything available for its own sake rather silly.....

This is well put - and I think the station has missed a trick here with the use of iPlayer. There is a tension between the station's wish - or perhaps the Controller's intention - to harvest a quasi-R2 audience with populist formats (Breakfast, In Tune) and the desire of high-intensity listeners (as represesented on these boards) for a more informed style of programme (CoW, CDR). If a twelve-day fest is deemed the right approach for the first (putative) audience, then the needs of the 'regulars' could be partly served by a longer availability on iPlayer of the latter style of programme.

I've just listened to Donald Macleod's Mozart from 5 January at a time that suited me in the early hours of the morning, but have missed some broadcasts from the Fest that I'd have liked to have heard, which are now no longer available.

Another point: I had expected Donald to illustrate his programme about the piano with greater reference to, and examples of, the changing nature of the piano in Mozart's lifetime. I was disappointed that, although reference was made to M's favouring of different manufacturers of fortepianos (fortepiani?), the music was illustrated with modern instruments. There have been some programme including interesting dialogues with musicians. I'd like to have heard more about (for example) Mozart and the development of the piano from musicians of the stature of Robert Levin and Charles Rosen whose contributions to 'Desperately seeking Mozart' were fascinating.

There have been presentational disappointments, too, in the use of such guests. Unfair, perhaps, to mention James Jolly's (11 January) guest Graham Vick (a late stand in) but the opportunity here was lost to hear Vick make his points by commenting on specific arias (or recitatives): his comments seemed to be slotted into a pre-determined sequence of music, on which he was given little opportunity to comment. Much the same was true of Petroc Trelawney's discussions with Colin Lawson the same evening: opportunities for discussing the development of the clarinet or performance style were evaded in this rather insipid programme.

[Gasteiner]

I voted for the second option: "good idea but with some flaws".

The main flaw as far I'm concerned isn't just the lack of advance schedules of what was to be in each programme but the lack of information on what was actually in some programmes after the event. This has occurred with all "Classical Collection" programmes where only a couple of items are listed but the rest have been overlooked in the schedules. The same has occurred with other programmes like "In Tune".

Another slight irritation is that whilst Rob Cowan has been diligently providing K numbers throughout all of his stints over the past 12 days, the same can't be said for certain other presenters.

I'm also a bit sceptical about the quality of some of the main performances chosen, e.g. the Marriage of Figaro was hardly a top notch version of what's available.

On the whole, however, I have greatly enjoyed the event. I was already a great admirer of Mozart and this has reinforced my liking. I particularly enjoyed hearing assessments about Mozart's abilities from the various "great and the good" - conductors, performers, academics etc - who were interviewed on some programmes. Their enthusiasm rubbed off on me and has provided a re-invigorated interest. The quality of their comments stands in contrast to the utter rubbish that one often encounters on some classical music forums in discussions about Mozart. I'm not referring to this one, of course, but have more in mind the generally low quality discussions one typically finds on some of those forums in the Google top 5.