Cast your vote

[doversoul1]

Here is an article from today’s Guardian with some readers’ comments. It does look we are not alone.

The Genius of Mozart, which seemed to go on forever, although I believe it was only a fortnight

It was so phenomenally anodyne, I wanted to send them Nick Ferrari (Re: Play Me…)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/14/man-of-god-radio-3-handel

Suffolkcoastal
I am sorry to hear that you had a bad year in 2005. So you may not remember it but when I look back, I think A Bach Christmas was planned and produced for Radio3 listeners. I don’t remember so much promotion and publicity as this time, do you?

[french frank]

Thanks for that, ds. Five and a half out of six agree with the article - and I could reliably identify one commenter, who doesn't post here often and, for information, hasn't voted in our poll.

[Suffolkcoastal]

As I vaguely remember there was some publicity, as you would expect for the Bach, but between programmes and in moderation, enough to make listeners aware no more as was advertising on R3generally then. It was nothing like the extent of the Mozart fest with the irritating trailers during programmes at every conceivable break it seemed, but then that's the way R3 now operates regardless of what its listeners think.

[subcontrabass]

The Bach Christmas seems generally well done,

The content and presentation were excellent. The only problem I had with it was that it was BEFORE Christmas rather than during the Christmas season, when I would have had more time to listen.

[Eudaimonia]

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.

Just because the message board format hasn't been used in a specifically-targeted way in the past doesn't mean you should overlook you're sitting on a huge, untapped resource which could be extremely useful to your organisation: a mass of educated people corralled in one place who sincerely care about what's happening to the station. Missing the opportunity to get organised and fashion something constructive from it would be a crime! There's so much grass-roots potential around here it's ridiculous. And I know you turn your nose at the idea of branding, but with a bit of an organisational image overhaul, you could grow your group exponentially.

For one, I believe you could really turn this place into a FoR3 fundraising powerhouse. ("Nonprofit Development 101", really.) This in turn would provide you the funds to broaden your mission in any number of areas: for one, you'd have the money to commission legitimate, scientifically-valid studies from reputable research organizations on various aspects of whatever it is you'd like to prove to the Trust. Think about it: what else could you be doing if you had more money? Definitely worth considering, in my opinion.

I realise there are benefits from maintaining the illusion of neutrality, but seriously--who are you fooling? Everybody here--and everybody involved-- knows exactly where they are and what it means. Do you honestly think you have the proverbial snowball's chance of getting a permanent link from the BBC? Seriously? Oh well, I could be in for a surprise; odder things have happened. Call me cynical, but when I first heard you were taking over the boards, my first thought was "Holy ****! What a shrewd bleep, to be able to pull off an influence grab of such epic proportions. I wonder if she's going to make them regret it." I suppose that remains to be seen, doesn't it.

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.

As I've said before, I do have one major, major caveat: with all your media exposure and attention from the Trust, I think you seriously risk playing straight into the hands of people who want to do away with Radio 3 altogether. ("See? Even the elitist old kooks who are supposed to like it think it's poo.") And any time the media needs a great pulled quote about how poo the station is, how stinky and subpar the RAJARs are, etc. they certainly know who'll deliver, don't they. "With Friends like these" indeed! From another perspective-- and just to play Devil's Advocate! -- I think there's a lot to be said for BBC Management to "circle the wagons" and "manage" you to the point that you tone it down. Frankly, I can't for the life of me understand why they haven't thrown you more of a sop already. I mean seriously, what would it hurt? If I were the Controller, I'd be kissing your bum six ways to Saturday.

"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?"

Sure, maybe I'll start a new thread sometime-- but for now I think I'm so far afield I better call it a day.

[french frank]

Euda

I can only say I find myself completely at odds with your viewpoints.

The forum was set up - at extremely short notice - to provide a means of keeping the Radio 3 MB community together, whereas otherwise it would have been, at best fragmented, at worst lost altogether. It is not the aim of 'my organisation' (organisation?) to derive profit or advantage from it, and that's the end of the story. I hope we have attracted a wide enough range of opinion for it to represent all views.

As I would judge, the (large?) majority of posters here are not, in the technical sense, 'Supporters' of FoR3 (in that that requires them to look at our aims and write to us telling us, specifically, that they (broadly!) support those aims). All members of this forum are equal, no matter what their views on R3, FoR3, the coalition, cats, Marmite or any other subject. We hope that there will be a focus on R3 but people are free to praise or criticise, as they see fit.

We get emails every day from people wanting to help us to 'grow our company', increase our Google rating &c. Foolishly, we delete them as junk. Be it a 'crime' or not, we aren't that ambitious

Edit: I would add that, for several years (as far as I know) we have had no 'media exposure', as you describe it. We seldom respond to the press.

[Eudaimonia]

As I would judge, the (large?) majority of posters here are not, in the technical sense, 'Supporters' of FoR3

Perhaps not now, but they certainly could be.

It is not the aim of 'my organisation' (organisation?) to derive profit or advantage from it, and that's the end of the story.

Oh, fair enough. But the fact that your Wikipedia entry characterises you as "a listeners’ campaign group", there are many media references to you as a "pressure group", (not to mention your having gathered signatures from influential supporters in the arts) led me to think you thought of FoR3 in terms of a public advocacy organisation interested in building grassroots support from an engaged, educated base of supporters. Seems like a prime opportunity to me! Oh well, my apologies if you find this gauche and offensive.

[french frank]

my apologies if you find this gauche and offensive.

Your choice of words which I wouldn't use .

We have a 'principled' view of what Radio 3 should be and aim to put that view to the BBC on behalf of those who agree with us. We do not claim to represent any others.

And by 'principled', I mean only that the views are according to general principles which can be clearly formulated. Others may object to those principles and have principles of their own. I was not meaning to suggest others are 'unprincipled', which is generally held to be a criticism, but their principles are seldom as clearly expressed as ours. As you said earlier, perhaps for another day and another thread?

[doversoul1]

Eudaimonia
‘a huge, untapped resource which could be extremely useful to your organisation’

You are obviously in marketing, as your posts have quite a lot of these ‘trade phrases’. Bizarre it may sound, I am beginning to suspect that you are after some kind of a marketing contract, or why are you so persistent? You have brought up this argument several times in the last few months, and every time you did the matter was clearly explained to you, as ff has done now.

I am sorry if this is somewhat personal but can you not accept that this forum is never going to be ‘organised’ as you seem to want it to be? And if you’d rather not be sitting amongst Poo, there is nothing to stop you not to be.

ff
We get emails every day from people wanting to help us to 'grow our company', increase our Google rating &c. Foolishly, we delete them as junk

[french frank]

Perhaps to lay this aspect to rest in this place, FoR3 has an underused blog. If anyone has an issue that they'd like to raise, investigate discuss &c, the best thing is to contact me with my Other Hat. I think that is a more appropriate place for it to be debated, and anyone who then wants to draw attention to the debate in this place is quite free to do so.

Otherwise, I think this getting off topic again

[BBMmk2]

Can we get back on topic please. This is a most infuriating way of using up messageboard time/space(?)

Thank goodness, on my part at least, that thye Mo\art Fest has fionished!

[Eudaimonia]

You are obviously in marketing, as your posts have quite a lot of these ‘trade phrases’. Bizarre it may sound, I am beginning to suspect that you are after some kind of a marketing contract, or why are you so persistent?

Rubbish. I have an academic background in arts policy analysis and worked in nonprofit development for a number of orchestras and chamber music groups-- major and minor--for years. There's no great esoteric secret to using terms appropriate to the subject. I'm currently making more than enough money as an analyst in the private sector, and am posting here because it amuses me-- conspiracy theory much?

OH well, sorry BBM--back on topic!

[french frank]

A justified response to a personal comment, but the topic is the Mozartfest and the poll. Further off topic comments risk being removed to the Basement . Please start a new thread elsewhere if you want to discuss a new subject.

As you were: The Genius of Mozart and this poll ... (that should kill discussion stone dead!)

[Eudaimonia]

Fair enough! Here's something on-topic to take a whack at: it might be useful for people who voted for the last two options to give a little more detail-- did they disapprove because:

a) they personally dislike listening to Mozart/thought it was boring
b) think 12 days of Mozart is too much/isn't warranted
c) think "12 days of anything" is lazy programming
d) couldn't stand the interactivity/dumbing down
e) think the whole thing was nothing more than a stunt to get new listeners
f) a little of all of the above

Hope that helps!

[Don Petter]

g) All of all the above (except f)