Facebook

[aeolium]

ff, I agree with you about the decline in quality on R3, but I wonder about how significant it is, I mean how important R3 is both to this generation and to new generations who may be interested in classical music. Isn't there a fundamental shift in the way that people get to know about different music, new interpretations from the way in which our generation, typically growing up in the 50s and 60s, did? The post-war idea was to have culture on the BBC radiating out to the country primarily from the centre (though also with regional orchestras). The main information about new music, new recordings, new interpretations, would come from there. Undoubtedly this was very successful for several decades with the Third and its successor R3 as new music, great performances in live concerts, new plays and great productions of classic plays were provided. But the classical music repertoire (I mean of what is available on disc or other media) has grown enormously compared with what it was say in the 1960s or 1970s. You have only to look at Suffolkcoastal's mammoth symphonic odyssey - 90% of which I would estimate has never or rarely been broadcast on R3 - to see that what R3 now covers is really the tip of a huge iceberg. And then there is contemporary music, including electronic music, which is hardly given any coverage on R3. Not to mention new writing from all parts of the globe.

More to the point, is linear, centralised broadcasting the way in which people will now expect to find out about music or art of the spoken word in which they are interested? Or is it more via virtual communities like this one, or the increasing number of ways in which live and recorded music can be obtained elsewhere, not least directly from the arts organisations themselves (NT Live, the Berlin Philharmonic digital concert hall, etc)? Is it perhaps too much to ask the BBC to try to fulfil a role which is now not nearly as relevant - at least in terms of arts provision - as it was. Of course there are still good concerts on R3, coverage of the Proms and other festivals, but in some respects the range of competing demands now from an audience interested in more varied music than simply the familiar classics is too great to be satisfied by any one linear broadcaster.

[french frank]

aeolium

Excellent points to discuss. (But I'm just preparing the ultimate folly - preparing to lodge an official complaint against the BBC Trust itself (and yes, Quis ipsos? - it will be interesting to find out ).

First: linear radio is not as yet showing very strong signs of any real decline (and there are alternative ways to access it other than the home radio); when/if that does happen....?

Second: Radio 3 itself is no longer purely linear anyway, with the arrival of the iPlayer - which has, BBC-wide, been a mammoth success. Modern technology.

Third: Radio 3 has always been about more than listening to music (I mean, specifically, the classical output); it has also been about learning about it. That does require special programmes as well as presenters competent to prepare good scripts. Otherwise we can just listen to CDs anyway.

Fourth: If we ask ourselves, would we, ourselves, find alternative ways of replacing our 'concept' of Radio 3 (i.e. many of us can do without what we're currently being offered)? Virtual communities like this one are by nature fragile: when FoR3 packs up so will the forum, unless individuals are prepared to take it over completely, on a new website.

Fifth: This is the BBC we're talking about - a hugely 'wealthy', publicly funded corporation. Should it close down all its music stations and concentrate on news and current affairs?

I think this hasn't covered all the points, and none very thoroughly, but for the moment, I have to go ... No doubt others can chip in.

[Nick Armstrong]

If it is any consolation FF, and I don't suppose it is, The Glasto coverage, especially online, appears to have been devised by 12 year olds , for 12 year olds.

Oh God yes, the ghastly 'let's be achingly trendy' presenters are - amazingly - even more toe-curling than the 'let's be classical' presenters of the Derham-Mohr-Pietsch school...

[salymap]

As time goes by fewer and fewer people remember just HOW good the BBC was years ago on all aspects of classical music.

My musical education was largely listening to programmes like 'Music Magazine', attending concerts and rehearsals, concerts at the Maida Vale Studios, largely BBC based.

Maybe it's my age but there is a lack of gravitas, it's all got too light-weight and easy-peasy. More is less, to turn the saying on its head.

[Frances_iom]

More is less, to turn the saying on its head.

Orwell had it right - war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

- as in many things 1984 offers a powerful insight on modern society and the attitude of those who crawled into power - a good discussion of the Party slogans is at http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/quotes.html

[aeolium]

First: linear radio is not as yet showing very strong signs of any real decline (and there are alternative ways to access it other than the home radio); when/if that does happen....?

Second: Radio 3 itself is no longer purely linear anyway, with the arrival of the iPlayer - which has, BBC-wide, been a mammoth success. Modern technology.

Perhaps not absolute decline (though I'm never entirely confident of the statistics about this - plenty of people here confess that their R3 listening has reduced substantially but I wonder if that is accurately being reflected in the stats). I was thinking more about how many other ways there now are for people to get access to, and information about, the music they are interested in. Classical music is fantastically cheaper in real terms now than it was forty years ago, and there's far more of it than could ever be accommodated on R3.

Yes, the i-player's a great development. But it is now competing with so many other media: other internet radio stations as well as the specialists arts and music channels, youtube, people's own massive CD and now download collections, DVDs, music broadcasting to cinema etc (as well as old-fashioned live concerts and operas!). In the 1970s, for an impecunious student unable to buy much music, R3 was virtually the only game in town (and as others have said, it was pretty damn good). How different now.

Third: Radio 3 has always been about more than listening to music (I mean, specifically, the classical output); it has also been about learning about it. That does require special programmes as well as presenters competent to prepare good scripts. Otherwise we can just listen to CDs anyway.

Fourth: If we ask ourselves, would we, ourselves, find alternative ways of replacing our 'concept' of Radio 3 (i.e. many of us can do without what we're currently being offered)? Virtual communities like this one are by nature fragile: when FoR3 packs up so will the forum, unless individuals are prepared to take it over completely, on a new website.

I think the internet has made access to specialist information about music much easier, not least through the presence of forums like this one. You are right that the continued existence of the for3 forum cannot be guaranteed - though long may it flourish! - but there are and will be other specialist music forums whether or not for3 disappears. Expert talk programmes about music on R3 have been increasingly reduced - we're pretty well left with BaL (which is not even primarily about the work but about its interpretation) and the shortened Discovering Music slot - and both these programmes are very often about works which are very well known. I confess that I often find the discussions about the BaL work here more interesting than the BaL itself, and I have largely abandoned listening to DM as I don't really want to listen to extracts from a work immediately prior to hearing it in a live concert.

As to your larger point, would I miss R3 and how would I go about finding alternatives? Yes, I would miss it, mainly for the concerts (especially chamber music) and operas. Not really, now, for much else apart from the occasional Do3. But I could easily live without it and would turn to other internet channels and sites like the BPO digital concert hall for concert broadcasting. I don't rely on R3 for any specialist information about the music.

Fifth: This is the BBC we're talking about - a hugely 'wealthy', publicly funded corporation. Should it close down all its music stations and concentrate on news and current affairs?

No, I don't think so. But I think there needs to be a reconsideration of what the purpose is of playing lots of recorded music (and lots of it in bleeding chunks) when it is so widely and cheaply available elsewhere. Perhaps it needs to think about more concerts (recorded as well as live) taken from various sources and really make an effort to make its fantastic radio archive more accessible. That would surely overcome some of the financial constraints created by the recent licence fee settlement. It could then move from being a primarily linear broadcaster (with i-player as a replay or delayed listen option) to being a primarily programme-select station with some live broadcasts.

Good luck with the Trust submission. I think it's as effective as writing to Santa Claus (perhaps even less!) but never mind

[french frank]

It was suggested (by Stephen Moss of the Guardian) that Radio 3 should cut its hours and return to the old Third Programme schedule and excellence. Would people feel deprived if they had to go elsewhere to find their music during the day? The point about the information on linear radio, though, is that it can (ideally!) 'contextualise' the music that's being played. Less hassle than checking to see what music you can find where and then go in search of any information somewhere else.

The listening hours are usually pretty stable, but the schedule of 'all fixed points' and three-hour programmes encourages longer listening. Radio 3 has been quite open that it wants people to 'listen longer' which is why we get these formless sequences: the idea is that people will carry on listening out of apathy.

Isn't yours an argument for closing down the station completely?

Why should there be acres of coverage of Glastonbury? http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...bury-2013.html Is this what is meant by Public Service Broadcasting? Just let the 'masses' gorge themselves on their favourite fare? Isn't that more of a reason for closing down the BBC?

[aeolium]

I think an attempted return to the Third would be suicidal for R3 (inconceivable even though it is under present management). The Third had a much higher proportion of speech-based programmes than R3 now and might not appeal to those who mainly want music (as well as having some programmes, such as IIRC a broadcast of a Molière play in French, which I would say are more appropriate for a subscription-based station than public service broadcasting).

Isn't yours an argument for closing down the station completely?

It wasn't meant to be. There's still an important place for live and recorded concert broadcasting and coverage of festivals, notably the Proms. And I was suggesting that the reduction in educational programmes about music (e.g. the change in the DM format) was not a good thing. I was trying to think of ways in which the station can concentrate on programmes that are distinctive and not replicated elsewhere - so cutting back on the playing of recordings, and extracts from recordings.

Why should there be acres of coverage of Glastonbury? http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...bury-2013.html Is this what is meant by Public Service Broadcasting? Just let the 'masses' gorge themselves on their favourite fare? Isn't that more of a reason for closing down the BBC?

It does seem a lot of hours, though it is only over 3 days, once a year (and not every year). Most of the coverage as far as I can see is on predictable channels such as BBC3, R1 and R2. It doesn't greatly interest me, but I'm sure a lot of people do want to hear it, or as you put it, "gorge themselves on their favourite fare". One of the BBC's obligations is to entertain and I'm sure that Glastonbury falls within the category of entertainment. Far from being a reason for closing the BBC down, it's one for keeping it open, I'd say. After all, a lot of other entertainment such as significant sports coverage is increasingly being privatised onto expensive subscription channels. On the other hand, if you tried to make the argument that because the music you like (but not, of course, "gorge on") is high art it should be part of public service broadcasting, while the music that the masses gorge on is not high art and therefore should not be, I don't think it would be a compelling argument for getting those same masses to pay the licence fee.

[french frank]

I used "gorge" to suggest the amount of broadcasting (on BBC One; BBC Two; BBC Three; BBC Four; Radio 1; Radio 1Xtra; Radio 2; Radio 6 Music; Online and interactive) over those three days, 'more than 250 hours of live coverage'. ('More than 120 live performances will be broadcast exclusively by the BBC over the three days of Glastonbury 2013 on TV, radio, red button and online – well exceeding the number featured two years ago') I don't quite follow this: 3 days is 72 hours, so doesn't that mean that at times Glastonbury coverage is on several channels at the same time?

I didn't follow the significance of your argument about the other sources of music since that has probably rather less relevance to Radio 3's output than to popular music.

You're probably right about Moss's suggestion: people have become music junkies who need to be listening whenever they can so the station has to be 24-hour. Radio 3's great fear is that if people are allowed to switch off, they won't come back - ever. It would probably be cheaper, though, to play a 6-hour repeat TTN from 6am to 12 pm. (And since the BBC puts the programmes together, perhaps they could add more informative introductions?). Followed by CotW, Lunchtime Concert &c. Then they might be able to afford to commission concert interval talks.

[teamsaint]

the coverage of Glastonbury (and its claims about it)by the BBC might make an interesting study for a media studies student.

I'm, not really sure where all that "live" coverage was, on TV at least. There was very little on "Live" on Friday or Saturday on BBC television as far as I could see, but perhaps I was looking in the wrong places.

As regards what the BBC claims to have been its extensive coverage....

Glastonbury still has some claims to be a festival of artistic merit, something that most big rock/pop festivals (V, Download for example) probably don't actually aspire to. Like it or don't , and despite its much more corporate feel these days(so I am told), it is still an event of national importance. For example, for an artist such as Rokia Traore to get a slot on the main stage (even at mid day) is still something of a break for a musician of some note on the world scene.
The BBC may get much wrong , and the presentation as seems inevitable these days, was dismal from what I saw, but big coverage of what is the countries leading popular music festival is thoroughly justified. It must surely widen the scope of listening of many viewers, who will be introduced to music that would otherwise pass them by.
In a way, it reminds me of the old listed sports events. Plenty of people have little chance of getting there, so the BBC is filling the gap. It's not as if BBC television gives much coverage to pop music festivals elsewhere , I think. Cambridge is the only other one covered in any depth, and AFAIR it isn't broadcast live, sadly.

Glastonbury coverage probably was on several channels at once, something that needs looking at . I would have thought BBC 3 and/ o r4 plus the red button and online streams ought to give plenty of scope for sufficient coverage.

sorry, I am probably OT here. One thing that connects this with the Proms for instance, is the BBC's tendency to be rather creative in its description of the "live" coverage.

[french frank]

big coverage of what is the countries leading popular music festival is thoroughly justified. It must surely widen the scope of listening of many viewers, who will be introduced to music that would otherwise pass them by. [...]Glastonbury coverage probably was on several channels at once, something that needs looking at . I would have thought BBC 3 and/ o r4 plus the red button and online streams ought to give plenty of scope for sufficient coverage.

BBC Three certainly - but putting it on BBC Four (the arts ghetto) goes against the notion of introducing people to music that will 'otherwise pass them by'. It's much more likely to pass them by again on BBC Four. If it's that important as an event, by all means have it on BBC One (and Three) but in that case, feel free not to have it on the other channels, and especially not concurrently. There must be a reason for the BBC's propensity to go OTT about everything.

[MrGongGong]

It's not as if BBC television gives much coverage to pop music festivals elsewhere , I think. Cambridge is the only other one covered in any depth,

Cambridge ?

[MrGongGong]

It's not as if BBC television gives much coverage to pop music festivals elsewhere , I think. Cambridge is the only other one covered in any depth,

Cambridge ?

[teamsaint]

Cambridge ?

alright, UNpopular music for folk !

[teamsaint]

BBC Three certainly - but putting it on BBC Four (the arts ghetto) goes against the notion of introducing people to music that will 'otherwise pass them by'. It's much more likely to pass them by again on BBC Four. If it's that important as an event, by all means have it on BBC One (and Three) but in that case, feel free not to have it on the other channels, and especially not concurrently. There must be a reason for the BBC's propensity to go OTT about everything.

well I agree about their propensity to go OTT, and I can't understand the need for coverage on at least 3 BBC TV channels
TBF, OB of glastonbury must be a genuinely major undertaking, so they certainly want to get the most out of it (and presumably the big fees involved).

I can't say I agree about BBC 4 coverage though. If ever there was an entertainment ghetto it is surely BBC3 ? I would have though that Glasto was well within the usual zone for BBC4 , for better or worse.