Cast your vote

[doversoul1]

I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's just an expression.

Maybe if we all lightened up a bit and enjoyed the music, instead of micro-analysing every turn of phrase used by a presenter, we'd find that Radio3 is still a fantastic broadcaster of wonderful music, knowledgeably and very professionally presented.

Just a thought.

I could do my tax return with Wagner as soundtrack if I chose to but I do not like the thought that there is an assumption within Radio3 that people listen to what they broadcast as soundtrack. It should be our choice and not theirs how to listen to music on Sunday morning or any other time for that matter. Most, if not all longstanding Radio3 listeners come to the station to have a properly prepared full meal, not little nibbles from the freezer warmed up in a microwave (or worse). We can choose to eat part of it but we cannot eat what is not there.

Yes, all right. I am getting rather carried away. Radio3 can of course have ‘light’ programmes but it just that, I don’t know, those seem to be getting the norm rather than an exception these days.

Mr Pee #179
Whereas those who have hated the whole thing are far more likely to complain about it. It will always be so. The silent majority and all that

That might have been so before this **** interactive idea got hold of the nation. Now pople want to join in something ‘good’ and feel good about it. Those who have something serious to complain about wouldn’t bother to join in the circus.

[Bert Coules]

I wonder though, if the concept of music as background accompaniment to other activity comes in for unfair criticism. Of course giving undivided attention to a piece from beginning to end is (or can be) immensely rewarding both intellectually and spiritually, but I suspect that music, even great music (maybe especially great music) can have significant value even when unconsciously absorbed while the hearer's foreground thoughts are otherwise engaged, and even when not heard complete.

I know that studies have been done concerning spoken-word radio, including audio drama, which suggested that some listeners attempting to block out every other sensory input actually tended to take in less of the programme than others who were doing something else at the same time. That's an extreme situation, I suppose, but - as I say - I do wonder if music-as-wallpaper doesn't have its benefits.

[french frank]

But aren't there two distinct points here, Bert? One focuses on the listener: how people choose to listen. The other, on the content: whether it is being specially tailored for people who want only music-as-wallpaper, and which tends to be bland, pleasant, undemanding ... Isn't that where the complaints arise from people who want to listen more intensively; or rather, who want more demanding content and are intolerant of wallpaper broadcasting?

[Bert Coules]

Yes, I agree. But I would dispute, I think, that "bland, pleasant and undemanding" is an accurate description of Radio 3's output. Isn't "bland", for example, too frequently used as a pejorative term by people who really mean "familiar"?

[french frank]

Yes, I agree. But I would dispute, I think, that "bland, pleasant and undemanding" is an accurate description of Radio 3's output. Isn't "bland", for example, too frequently used as a pejorative term by people who really mean "familiar"?

I'll leave that to others! In fact, I think presentation also comes in here, at the extremes, 'soothing' or informative. Whether R3 is moving in this direction, or whether parts of it are, may indeed be a matter of opinion. But if a listener says the content isn't demanding enough for him/her, it's a statement of fact, not opinion.

Specifically on the Mozartfest, I was only putting forward the view that, amid the reported euphoric success of the event, there was undeniably a 'significant' (how to quantify?) degree of dissent, for specific reasons which have been stated. If tony yyy was reporting accurately that Sean Rafferty indeed said that, apart from the one critic, 'everyone else seemed to have enjoyed it' there is a disconnect with reality!

[aeolium]

What's frustrating is that there doesn't seem to be any closely argued explanation of *why* those who approved of the project thought it was a good idea. It would also have been good to see the voting breakdown excluding those who didn't like Mozart's music anyway (but who might have supported a similar project with a different composer). I'd be interested to know who among those who admired Mozart's music thought it was a bad or terrible idea anyway - as I did.

[tony yyy]

If tony yyy was reporting accurately that Sean Rafferty indeed said that, apart from the one critic, 'everyone else seemed to have enjoyed it' there is a disconnect with reality!

It's still available here at around 1:33, just before the Glass Harmonica Quintet I was getting so obsessive about. (Thanks, Sean, for playing it). I took him to mean that the message he read out was the only negative one he'd received. I was trying not to be judgemental - I've no reason to disbelieve him. Perhaps he wasn't being literal and only meant that most people loved it.

[Suffolkcoastal]

If Sean Rafferty's comments are correct then R3 is misleading its listeners in its refusal to acknowledge the shortcomings of the Mozart fest and the fact that there has been quite a lot of negative reaction too.

[Panjandrum]

I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's just an expression.

Maybe if we all lightened up a bit and enjoyed the music, instead of micro-analysing every turn of phrase used by a presenter, we'd find that Radio3 is still a fantastic broadcaster of wonderful music, knowledgeably and very professionally presented.

Just a thought.

Soundtrack generally implies background to some other activity. The inference being that this is now intended to be listened to while washing the car, doing the ironing and sundry other sunday chores; and not for serious listening.

[vinteuil]

I'd be interested to know who among those who admired Mozart's music thought it was a bad or terrible idea anyway - as I did.

It is precisely because I admire Mozart - and Beethoven - and even more so, Bach - that I have loathed all of these immersion events. It seems to me an enormous insult to the importance of this music to give us these indigestible jumbo packages. What made this one worse was - as many have commented - the lack of advance info of what would be on when. There are rarely-played bits of Mozart which I would have gone out of my way to have listened to - which were not flagged up, and which got lost in the unspecified morass.

[Mr Pee]

What's frustrating is that there doesn't seem to be any closely argued explanation of *why* those who approved of the project thought it was a good idea.

Well, I approved of the project and I thought it was a good idea. Why? Because it re-ingnited my love for Mozart's music, which had become a little stale. The fascinating talks with conductors and performers gave new insight into his works; and whatever time of day or night, one could tune in and either hear a familiar work in a new context or new performance, or discover new ones.

Soundtrack generally implies background to some other activity. The inference being that this is now intended to be listened to while washing the car, doing the ironing and sundry other sunday chores; and not for serious listening.

It's up to you how you listen- the use of one word by a presenter makes not a jot of difference to the quality of the music being played. If somebody wants to listen to it while reading the Sunday papers, that's up to them. In the real world, not everybody can give the radio their undivided attention 24/7. In my case, with "Breakfast" or "Sunday Morning", I'm fully aware that these are programmes offering shorter pieces, which can either be given my full attention, or used as a "soundtrack" whilst I get on with my life.

I generally do my serious listening later in the day. Mornings are spent,as I said, getting on with the dull necessities of life , whether it be last night's washing up, dealing with the mail, tidying up, etc. etc., and I enjoy having Radio3 on in the background whilst I do so. If there's a particular piece that I want to give serious attention to, then I'll stop what I'm doing, sit down, and listen.

And then in the afternoon or early evening, I'll devote a good few hours to my CD collection, or Radio3 if they're playing something I particularly want to hear.

The endless carping on these boards, not just about the Mozart fest, but Radio3 in general, is really becoming rather tiresome.

[tony yyy]

The endless carping on these boards, not just about the Mozart fest, but Radio3 in general, is really becoming rather tiresome.

Have you tried turning the forum off and listening to a CD instead?

[Suffolkcoastal]

As is Mr Pee's endless carping at those with an opposite view to himself. I would suggest that anyone who denies that R3 has got problems should look at doversoul's link to the Bach Christmas and the 2005 schedules in general.

I don't approve of composer fests even for composers I love, non-stop playing of a composer doesn't do the composer's reputation any favours and can make one sick of hearing a composer's work for quite a while and could drive listeners away from the station. The Mozart fest had extremely serious shortcomings, the extracts from works regularly being played on the same day as the complete work, the stupid CFM style request programme, haphazard programming, and the mind-numbing trailers and the sheer length of the fest.

[french frank]

Each one of us has personal reasons for our opinions, based on a multiplicity of factors: here are mine:

1. I voted 'A bad idea but with some good programmes' because I listened to some programmes which I was glad to have heard, and I'm utterly certain there were many more.

2. I probably have six times more CDs of Mozart (maybe more) than any other composer, so, yes, I love Mozart.

3. The wall-to-wall idea didn't affect my own listening since I don't these days listen to many of the classical music programmes: in all I selected three programmes during the course of the 12 days, and had no wish to explore further at this time. 'Every note he wrote' simply overwhelms and I couldn't be bothered to track down (even had it been possible) the individual works I wanted to hear.

4. I might very well have listened to more if there had been less on offer. If I could have seen a series of programmes which had a musically coherent aim, focused on some aspect of the work and with specialised presentation, I would probably have tried to listen to the whole thing, and emerged feeling I had learned a lot that I could carry over into my general Mozart listening.

5. I remain convinced that the U-turn on wall-to-wall Mozart was primarily a promotional decision: what other classical composer would have had the universal pull of Mozart, out in the world beyond Radio 3, and the ability to attract so much press attention? And that is never going to be a worthy motive for a serious musical project.

[Mr Pee]

Have you tried turning the forum off and listening to a CD instead?

You obviously didn't read my whole post.....

And then in the afternoon or early evening, I'll devote a good few hours to my CD collection, or Radio3 if they're playing something I particularly want to hear.

And actually, I have just listened to a CD; Mussorgsky and Borodin, Sir Simon Rattle and the BPO. Lovely, and deserving of my full attention.

Now off to listen to Eine Alpensinfonie, inspired by next weekend's "Building a Library".