Cast your vote

[Panjandrum]

I see in RW's monthly 'message from the orchestra pit' that there has been an 'overwhelming positive response'.

If I say that the idea was complete rubbish, but that there were decent programmes among the dross that would no doubt constitute a "positive response". Not hard, therefore, to see how RW could make this claim, safe in the knowledge that, if called to account, it could be justified.

[Eudaimonia]

By that standard, it's clear that there has been a significant vote of dissent,

In what sense are 58 votes significant when you're talking about an audience of 1.8 million? All things considered, I think the fact that 28 percent of our heavily-skewed sample liked it--and 40 percent admitted there were at least some good programmes-- is pretty overwhelming.

3. For some of us, this isn't a matter of democracy and the popular vote: it's about principles and what best serves the music.

So in effect, you're saying it doesn't matter that your opinion isn't representative; it matters because you're principled. Even if all 500+ of us took the most principled stance of all and agreed that Radio 3 should be scrapped in order to bring back the Third Programme as envisioned by T.S. Eliot in the early 1950s, what difference would it make to "best serving the music" given the currrent political, economic and social context we're all unfortunate enough to live in?

[Suffolkcoastal]

Probably broadly right Panjandrum, R3 is hardly going to acknowledge or take any notice of negative opinion these days or any suggestions that differ from the 'management line'. As FF says 'overwhelming positive response' is used a lot these days and one takes the use of this phrase with a very large pinch of salt from wherever it comes! In response to Eudaimonia, you are entitled to your opinion and I and others who criticise R3 are entitled to ours too! Some of what you like may be in the long run right but equally some of us who are unhappy may also be right in the long run.

[french frank]

In what sense are 58 votes significant when you're talking about an audience of 1.8 million?

I apologise. I thought I was making it clear that I was referrring to comments all over the internet, including the BBC's blogs, not this poll.

All things considered, I think the fact that 28 percent of our heavily-skewed sample liked it--and 40 percent admitted there were at least some good programmes-- is pretty overwhelming.

No, I wouldn't describe 28% as 'overwhelming'. The point of the poll was to establish also whether the total immersion idea was approved of. It wasn't. But it seemed only fair to acknowledge that it had produced some good programmes. In fact, those good programmes are precisely the kind of thing I think people would like to listen to all year round, rather than formula-based programmes which are presenter-led playlists.

So in effect, you're saying it doesn't matter that your opinion isn't representative; it matters because you're principled. Even if all 500+ of us took the most principled stance of all and agreed that Radio 3 should be scrapped in order to bring back the Third Programme as envisioned by T.S. Eliot in the early 1950s, what difference would it make to "best serving the music" given the currrent political, economic and social context we're all unfortunate enough to live in?

Well, you go on to distort the point being made. As an aside, I would say that the more 'popular' you make your programming, by definition, the more people you will please. But pleasing the largest number of people isn't the sole aim of a PSB. You can see, for example, that many people approved of the Mozartfest on the grounds that there was 'always classical music to listen to', none of that awful jazz and world. Okay, so they gave the project the thumbs up. But that is a view I won't accept (on principle) as a reason for turning Radio 3 into a classical music only station.

[Eudaimonia]

Some of what you like may be in the long run right but equally some of us who are unhappy may also be right in the long run.

What I "like" and prefer to listen to personally and what I think is a realistic, forward-looking direction for the station are two entirely different matters.

Just because I've been critical of the manner in which many messageboarders criticise the presenters BY NO MEANS means I actually like them myself. And if you presented me with the "Would you rather listen to R3 or the Third Programme?" question in a vacuum, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat. But you can't program a publicly-funded radio station in a vacuum, nor can you cater exclusively to the narrow tastes and interests of specialists while ignoring the vast majority of the R3 listeners of today.

Is there room for improvement? Most definitely. Are you ever going to have an impact without bringing concrete, constructive suggestions to the table for consideration? I can't for the life of me figure out how endlessly saying "your station is poo and we're all going to keep tuning in, being outraged, and reminding you of it until you're not poo anymore" is going to do anything besides alienate people.

[french frank]

Are you ever going to have an impact without bringing concrete, constructive suggestions to the table for consideration? I can't for the life of me figure out how endlessly saying "your station is poo and we're all going to keep tuning in, being outraged, and reminding you of it until you're not poo anymore" is going to do anything besides alienate people.

The point of this forum, and of the old BBC boards, was not principally to offer suggestions for improving Radio 3. There isn't much evidence that views expressed on messageboards are regarded as worth consideration. Perhaps you should check up, via one of your comprehensive searches of the internet, what representations have been made to the BBC, and by whom?

Interesting that you would like to go back to the Third Programme - two hours of classical music per evening, two hours of arts programmes, two hours of other discussion? And that was it?

[Eudaimonia]

I apologise. I thought I was making it clear that I was referrring to comments all over the internet, including the BBC's blogs, not this poll.

If you go back over the BBC blog comments and newspaper column letters, you'll notice that many of the negative comments are made by the same old familiar faces under their same old familiar usernames.

[aeolium]

What evidence is there that the Mozartfest was very well received by the majority of R3 listeners? I haven't seen any. What grounds are there for believing that those who post here are wholly unrepresentative of R3 listeners?

What I would like to see is a properly argued justification for the exercise - and for the way it was programmed, with numerous extracts and repeated works - by the Controller of R3 or an R3 spokesman. I'd also be interested to see, in print, any approval for the project from any well-respected performer - again, with arguments explaining what s/he thought were the benefits of the project. I can't recall seeing either.

[Suffolkcoastal]

I expect many of the positive ones are from the same sources too so we are at stalement. I have sent my suggestions in before but never even had an acknowledgement and I don't think it will make a lot difference what anyone suggests the current management is set in its ways and hopes we all quietly give up.

[Eudaimonia]

The point of this forum, and of the old BBC boards, was not principally to offer suggestions for improving Radio 3.

Well then, what's the point of endlessly posting about how it's all poo? With all the rhetoric floating around about "being heard", I thought you had an interest in being constructive.

Perhaps you should check up, via one of your comprehensive searches of the internet, what representations have been made to the BBC, and by whom?

I've seen your letter to the trust. A job well done; you just seem in a position to be doing so much more.

Interesting that you would like to go back to the Third Programme - two hours of classical music per evening, two hours of arts programmes, two hours of other discussion? And that was it?

No, I was speaking more generally about the philosophy of programming advocated by T.S. Eliot and The Third Programme Defence Society; I'm sure you know what I mean.

[french frank]

Well then, what's the point of endlessly posting about how it's all poo? With all the rhetoric floating around about "being heard", I thought you had an interest in being constructive.

Well, I don't think that describes what I personally do. But my interest in keeping the R3 boards going was because I find it instructive to listen to what people are saying, from all points of view. Most points made on these boards are too, shall we say, "specific" ever to feature in any representations made by FoR3, either written or personally presented. But they can contribute to a general picture. And when the same complaints are repeated 'ad nauseam', that also contributes to the picture. As do similar points made by others elsewhere not specifically referring to Radio 3 at all. I try to build up evidence from as wide a range of sources as I can.

I've seen your letter to the trust. A job well done; you just seem in a position to be doing so much more.

That was probably merely the latest. But I'm glad that you seem to approve: I think it is typical of the way we try to work, which involves a lot of consultation and thought - and this forum isn't really an instrument for direct campaigning, though it's useful to try and draw out opinions .

I was speaking more generally about the philosophy of programming advocated by T.S. Eliot and The Third Programme Defence Society; I'm sure you know what I mean.

Could I invite you to say more?

[Norfolk Born]

As FF says 'overwhelming positive response' is used a lot these days and one takes the use of this phrase with a very large pinch of salt from wherever it comes!

This useful phrase could be used, for example, if a large number of people said they positively hated the whole thing.

[johnb]

I'm not against these composer marathons - I greatly enjoyed "A Bach Christmas" and the Beethoven-Fest and found them very good indeed. Strangely, Tchaikovsky/Stravinksy-Fest didn't grab me as much.

However, I found the Mozart-Fest pretty dire. There were some interesting programmes but there were acres of stuff that were mildly enjoyable but wouldn't be out of place played in the Bath Pump Room while the patrons enjoy their afternoon teas. (In fact that would be the ideal setting for a fair proportion of the music played.) On the infrequent occasions that I tuned in I sometimes found the presentation vaguely irritating and patronising. - And then there were those tediously annoying trails!

I do enjoy listening to Mozart but not the juvenilia and definitely not as a continuous stream.

Roger Wright was correct the first time round.

[doversoul1]

Like johnb, I enjoyed A Bach Christmas but not Mozart Fest. It may be because I prefer Bach to Mozart anyway or it may be because my listening pattern has changed and I did not spend so much time listening to the radio then. But I don’t think that is the main reason. I’ve just looked at A Bach Christmas Home page and found that it was so much better organised (unless the play lists were completed afterward), and the programmes look much more focused on music than, say, on audience. I think it is worth comparing and contrasting. Have a look.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/bach/index.shtml

[Suffolkcoastal]

Thanks for that doversoul, I've just spent a pleasurable hour scanning through the schedules for 2005, I'd always felt that around 2005 was when the first cracks started to appear in R3, but looking randomly through the schedules shows just a considerable better musical balance a good range of composers and works, plenty of complete works, interesting COTW including Dohnanyi (where was this in 2010? R3 should have repeated the programmes at least) Enescu and Honegger for starters all composers largely sidelined these days, a few old favourites yes, but not overplayed to the extent they are these days. The Bach Christmas seems generally well done, I can recall some of the programmes, but 2005 was not a good year for me personally so my recall of that year is poor to say the least! Anyway anyone who doubts those of us who complain about what R3 has become in the last couple of years, should take a random look at 2005!