Results of the Mozart poll

[Eudaimonia]

Probably true, and I am fully aware of the dangers of extrapolating any small sample. I can only report my own experience. Of people I know well, there are only six I can think of who are interested in classical music and have regularly listened to R3. None of them are people who would ever think of looking at a message board, much less posting to it. They have all mentioned at different times that they now never listen to Breakfast, and that they listen to R3 in general much less than they did before recent changes.

Neither of my two best friends post to boards or are "Breakfast Show"-type people either.
So I guess we've got the "Good Friends of FoR3 Messageboarders" demographic all sewn up, then...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There's a certain paradox with the whole Mozartfest project.
It seems to begenerally assumed that Radio 3 listeners have a concentration span of no more than around 8 minutes before noon, chopping full length works down to single movements, etc.
Yet the reverse argument applied when playing 12 days of continuous Mozart (though we still had the constant interruptions before noon).

[Simon]

You will know then, ff, that I voted for No2, 'Good idea, broadly well done but with some flaws'.
Which is, of course, the right answer.

Why? I hear you splutter.

No 1. Excellence can't be watered down by 'on the whole' qualifications. Ruled out.

No 3. A sad cop out.

No 4. 'Mozart' and 'a bad idea' are contradictory, and those who selected No 4 immediately realised the contradiction and tried to cover up. Ruled out.

No 5 As for 4, without apology, but with the preposterous position of arriving at a conclusion before the trial.

'Flaws' with 'broadly' are the operative words here, and much constructive criticism has been brought to bear in dealing with them, even by those who, unfortunately, voted for the wrong options.

I voted for No 2, too. And I can't fault Patrick's logic above. :)

[french frank]

The idea of 1 & 2 v. 4 & 5 was to establish whether, in general, people thought a 12-day schedule devoted to a single composer and 'every note s/he wrote' was a good idea. Not clear, then, Simon, whether we are to conclude that you find it a good idea if the composer is Mozart but not if it's, let's see now, who can we think of ...?

My understanding is that the 4 & 5 voters were voting against the principle ('bad idea'), perhaps, like me, considering there were much better, more imaginative, more creative, approaches?

[Eudaimonia]

Here's a sub-poll from the other thread a few more of you might want take a whack at: did people who voted for the last two options 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!

[kernelbogey]

... In many instances the lack of any information of the works being broadcast was both frustrating and gave the impression of a cavalier attitude to Radio 3 listeners. ...

Off-topic, I know, but last night's Po3 announcement on the website does not list the piano works - 'Followed by highlights from pianist Elizabeth Leonskaya's recent Wigmore Hall recital' - even though it was recorded in December, nor does it today state that this included a performance of Schubert's G maj sonata. Tonight's works performed by her also not listed. Shockingly cavalier!

[PatrickOD]

My understanding is that the 4 & 5 voters were voting against the principle ('bad idea'), perhaps, like me, considering there were much better, more imaginative, more creative, approaches?

There being a precedent for considering a 'first past the post' solution to be not all that satisfactory, how about a compromise? Say, a Coalition? In the interests of the people?

No 2, 'good idea' but with flaws (17%)
N0 4 'bad idea' but with good bits (39%)
(No 3, you might say, is the 'ugly')
Nos 1 and 5 would never get on together, though strange things can happen ...... I'll say no more.

So then, 2 and 4 share some ideas - a window for negotiation? They command 56% - a working majority.
I suggest a Coaliton - no, scrub that, a No 2-led Listeners Group ( it's my idea after all ) with a brief to advise on more imaginative, more creative approaches to this sort of thing.

We could all be in this together.

[Andrew Slater]

The online schedule and playlists appear to mirror those printed in the Radio Times, which devotes a restricted space to Radio 3. This makes me wonder whether there is an internal agreement between the department of the BBC that maintains the online schedules and BBC Worldwide (who publishes the Radio Times) that, in advance of the actual broadcast, the online schedules will only show what the Radio Times prints. (Most of the playlists seem to have appeared on the schedules shortly after the broadcasts occurred.)

I'm not sure that's quite the case: I think that they probably only prepare well in advance the bits which they have had to do for the Radio Times. They do in fact produce more detailed web listings than the RT for (e.g.) CD Review, Private Passions and R3 Requests. (I usually manage to get them into my printable listings.)

I believe that at a meeting with Mr. Wright in 2009, FoR3 members were told that R3 didn't have sufficient staff to enter a schedule in advance of a programme which was subject to late change (in this case, Breakfast, for which at the time a very sketchy listing was produced in advance, but this changed to nothing at all within weeks - presumably because RT no longer wanted anything, to cut down on space) and then to go back after the event and correct / augment it. This would generally support my theory that they only do what 'they have to' in advance. (Not that this is in any way listener-friendly, though.)

By the way, I've produced a set of printable listings for the Mozart thing - see this message.

[aeolium]

My understanding is that the 4 & 5 voters were voting against the principle ('bad idea'), perhaps, like me, considering there were much better, more imaginative, more creative, approaches?

In my case not merely that there were much better, more imaginative, more creative approaches but that that idea did a disservice to Mozart, the R3 listening audience and public service broadcasting. It was essentially treating Mozart as a commodity, music as aural wallpaper, so that great works, juvenilia, light entertainment music all merged into an endless stream of sound.

A few years back I went to a long concert given by the Emerson Quartet at the QEH at which they played six quartets by Haydn. They were all very different works and I could not fault the performances but well before the end of the evening I was feeling my concentration level falling and my ability to respond to the works with any degree of enthusiasm fading. Yet they were all works that I knew and loved and, properly scheduled in a concert, would I am sure have made a powerful impact. The listening brain surely needs variety/contrast/a break/silence to appreciate music of this kind.

[aeolium]

I suggest a Coaliton - no, scrub that, a No 2-led Listeners Group ( it's my idea after all ) with a brief to advise on more imaginative, more creative approaches to this sort of thing.

We could all be in this together.

Fair enough - 17% seems good enough to claim a mandate to govern. But remember, you have to break your promises and change your mind a few times once you're in charge

[Flosshilde]

If a handful of people hate everything about it, so what? .

So you don't think our views are worth hearing?

I think it would be more useful if we were all specific about what exactly went wrong and how we think something like this might improve next time rather than wasting our breath trashing the whole concept.

Well, I thought that there were quite a few people who thought the whole concept of blanket coverage of a single composer was what was wrong, whether they liked Mozart or not. If you want to focus on a specific composer perhaps an extended 'composer of the week' might be a better way. I also thought that the Handel operas every Thursday for a year worked well, & the Haydn symphonies twice a week.
But in your Panglossian world you seem very unwilling to agree that there might be problems with the concept, rather than how it was carried out.

[Eudaimonia]

So you don't think our views are worth hearing?

As much as anyone's, but that wasn't my point: I was speaking hypothetically from the perspective of someone from management thinking about what to take away from the whole exercise. Like it or not, they're going to do it again, so why not try to offer something more useful and constructive than "don't"? Articulating specific shortcomings and trying to offer solutions or reasonable alternatives seems to me a better use of everyone's time than indulging in yet another round of fruitless grousing. (Or praise, for that matter.) Let's work on bringing something to the table.

All pleasant rhetoric about "engaged audiences" aside, you shouldn't forget that in a 2007 interview, Wright says "in the end, it is our job to take editorial decisions and that often means leading, rather being led by, the audience". Given that anything any of us say is of limited value at best, I don't see anything wrong with tempering "being principled" with a healthy dose of pragmatism.

But in your Panglossian world you seem very unwilling to agree that there might be problems with the concept, rather than how it was carried out.

Not at all: a lot of what I'm doing is trying to further the dialogue and bring out points nobody seems to be considering. To my mind, trashing the concept makes as much sense as waxing rhapsodic about my opinion of the R3 programming in 1970. Things are the way they are, and the best any of us can do is think of how best to move forward from where we are now.

[french frank]

Like it or not, they're going to do it again

Not necessarily. The man said, "So no word for a little while about when and who, or even if!"

It always seems to me to be a total cop-out and abandonment of principles to say, 'Well, it's how things are and are going to be, so start off by accepting that and move on from there.' There are issues where you can compromise and issues where you can't. At least, for some people. Other people are just aimiable blancmange

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Things are the way they are, and the best any of us can do is think of how best to move forward from where we are now.

This is true, but that does not mean we should accept where we are now. Waxing lyrical about the 1970 schedule is only to draw attention to the possiblity that Radio 3 might really have been better then. Many things were worse, but not everything.

[Eudaimonia]

Things are the way they are, and the best any of us can do is think of how best to move forward from where we are now.
This is true, but that does not mean we should accept where we are now.

Sometimes, we don't have any choice: times change whether we approve or not. And if you can't accept it, at least you can acknowledge it!

Not necessarily. The man said, "So no word for a little while about when and who, or even if!"

Oh really now FF, I didn't think you were the type to read too much into that kind of waffle. Anyway, why wouldn't they do it again? You all better work on making a serious, comprehensive, persuasive case to the contrary, because I doubt anybody else is. Flosshilde had some good suggestions a couple of posts ago, why not flesh them out?

It always seems to me to be a total cop-out and abandonment of principles to say, 'Well, it's how things are and are going to be, so start off by accepting that and move on from there.'

Not necessarily. Which is better: waving the flag for something that's never, ever going to happen, or quietly working toward making small, concrete changes and improvements where you can?

There are issues where you can compromise and issues where you can't. At least, for some people. Other people are just aimiable blancmange.

Well, some people are all arsenic and no lace, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing themselves (or their principles) any favours.

Besides, I think you're confusing being a spineless pushover with this crazy little old thing called "having social skills". I think we could all take a page or two from Mister Pleasant, actually. Just as master poker players know how to adjust their hand selection and betting aggression based on the style of play of their opponents, I think he's somehow hit on the winning, golden ratio of how to play people to get stuff DONE. Who knows what he really thinks about anything? Politeness is a social strategy.