Facebook

[mangerton]

I agree that the BBC ought to spread its coverage for pop festivals around (on, say, BBC3 and R1 predominantly) and not go overboard on one major festival.

I don't know what plans the BBC has this year, but T in the Park has figured prominently in previous years.

[aeolium]

And a continuous online stream? Plus at least an hour (Saturday evening?) when it was on three BBC television channels at the same time?

Isn't there an online stream for the Proms concerts? I included that hour (in fact I was totting up the coverage on the different channels). They were showing different performances.

One would expect the overall spend to be higher for the Proms

Indeed, but the way it comes across - although you are not grumbling - is that you are unhappy about the BBC's coverage of three days of a pop festival, perhaps the only one in the year for which it has extensive coverage, while there is a full eight weeks of coverage of a classical music festival. It seems ungenerous, to say the least, to complain about those three days.

[Sir Velo]

I'm with you up to a point aeolium in that licence fee payers have a right to expect coverage of Glastonbury as the BBC has purchased the rights to it. However, to expect it to dominate 3 out of four channels over three days is excessive, and surely an abuse of the concept of public service broadcasting. This is surely the ideal case for the BBC to stick it on the red button and then let those who want to see it, do so - without it being foisted on the rest of us. Alternatively, how about experimenting with pay per view for some of the acts?

[french frank]

It seems ungenerous, to say the least, to complain about those three days.

I don't agree that it's 'ungenerous' especially when you point out that the three simultaneous transmissions were 'different perfomances' - as if that's supposed to be a consolation to people who would have preferred more of a choice than Glastonbury, Glastonbury or Glastonbury. That is exactly the point that you make about a surfeit of Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert etc. Too much crammed into a short space of time.

[BBMmk2]

I'm with you up to a point aeolium in that licence fee payers have a right to expect coverage of Glastonbury as the BBC has purchased the rights to it. However, to expect it to dominate 3 out of four channels over three days is excessive, and surely an abuse of the concept of public service broadcasting. This is surely the ideal case for the BBC to stick it on the red button and then let those who want to see it, do so - without it being foisted on the rest of us. Alternatively, how about experimenting with pay per view for some of the acts?

I think that could be the way forward, SV. Maybe the BBC has thought of it. It may be not a egal position for them to persever0

[amateur51]

I think that could be the way forward, SV. Maybe the BBC has thought of it. It may be not a egal position for them to persever0

Pay-per-view on public service broadcasting? Go and wash your mouth out with soap and water, BBM and take Sir Velo with you.

[Sir Velo]

Pay-per-view on public service broadcasting? Go and wash your mouth out with soap and water, BBM and take Sir Velo with you.

You see the tide of public opinion is changing, Ammy!

[amateur51]

You see the tide of public opinion is changing, Ammy!

Hardly a tide, Sir Velo

Or was that intended to be ironic?

[aeolium]

I don't agree that it's 'ungenerous' especially when you point out that the three simultaneous transmissions were 'different perfomances' - as if that's supposed to be a consolation to people who would have preferred more of a choice than Glastonbury, Glastonbury or Glastonbury.

For one hour. Compare that with the Olympics last year, or Jubilee coverage etc, or Wimbledon now.

That is exactly the point that you make about a surfeit of Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert etc. Too much crammed into a short space of time.

It's not in the least the same point. These were performances of different music, not a continuous stream of music by the same composer. It was actually intended to give a choice of music and performances.

Let's imagine the situation turned around, with a three-day festival of classical music including performances at multiple venues, R3 covering the music continuously plus delayed broadcasts and concerts and highlights concurrently on BBC2 and BBC4. Later in the year there is coverage of an 8-week rolling pop festival with extensive radio and TV coverage, far more in total than the coverage of the 3-day classical festival. Which one would you be complaining about?

[MrGongGong]

Pay-per-view on public service broadcasting? Go and wash your mouth out with soap and water, BBM and take Sir Velo with you.

I'd rather have Glastonbury than endless football, running about etc etc
It's not as if they would have been showing wall to wall Boulez, Bax or Britten
for once in a long time I actually enjoyed sitting in the front room watching TV last Saturday
something that I would normally avoid like the plague

[french frank]

For one hour. Compare that with the Olympics last year, or Jubilee coverage etc, or Wimbledon now.

Well, I'd say the same with sporting events, or any big events.

It's not in the least the same point. These were performances of different music, not a continuous stream of music by the same composer. It was actually intended to give a choice of music and performances.

A choice of music and performances largely aimed at a target audience of similar tastes. Not much of a choice if you aren't of that audience: unless, of course, you argue that the vast majority of people in the UK are fans of Glastonbury.

Let's imagine the situation turned around, with a three-day festival of classical music including performances at multiple venues, R3 covering the music continuously plus delayed broadcasts and concerts and highlights concurrently on BBC2 and BBC4. Later in the year there is coverage of an 8-week rolling pop festival with extensive radio and TV coverage, far more in total than the coverage of the 3-day classical festival. Which one would you be complaining about?

Leaving aside the likelihood of that level of television coverage for classical music, I would feel just as sympathetic (or perhaps 'guilty' would be a better word) at having my taste dominating the schedules.

But if you deny a similarity between my comparisons, still more so with yours. Radio 3 is a minority station which specialises in classical music. Most people don't listen to it anyway, so any 'saturation' coverage there doesn't affect the viewing/listening of 96% of the population. And there isn't similar 'extensive' TV coverage of the Proms anyway (quite rightly). If BBC Four were saturated with Proms and BBC Three saturated with Glastonbury, those would be closer comparisons. But, no, I don't even like (or approve of) Total Immersions. Though some people do.

But if you hold the view that the Glastonbury coverage is not excessive, so be it.

[aeolium]

A choice of music and performances largely aimed at a target audience of similar tastes. Not much of a choice if you aren't of that audience: unless, of course, you argue that the vast majority of people in the UK are fans of Glastonbury.

Though as mentioned, there was only one hour where there was that lack of choice, and most of the TV coverage was on BBC3 where you might expect a large part of the audience to be interested in Glastonbury.

And there isn't similar 'extensive' TV coverage of the Proms anyway (quite rightly). If BBC Four were saturated with Proms and BBC Three saturated with Glastonbury, those would be closer comparisons. But, no, I don't even like (or approve of) Total Immersions. Though some people do.

But can coverage over the evenings of one weekend really be considered 'saturation'? You say there isn't extensive TV coverage of the Proms - but there's more than twice as much as there was at Glastonbury. And as for Total Immersions, there is a huge variety of music played at Glastonbury, so it's hardly the sort of immersion that we are familiar with on R3, with the focus on one composer. Five 4-5 hour Wagner operas over 7 evenings, which we have at this year's Proms - that's more like immersion.

Do I think the Glastonbury coverage is excessive? Yes, slightly, but not so much as to make a fuss about, particularly if you don't have a television and mainly listen to R3 where not a note of Glastonbury music could be heard.

[MrGongGong]

Do I think the Glastonbury coverage is excessive? .

I don't
I hate having to avoid sport all the time
I like music of all kinds
we would do with MORE music of all kinds
don't fall for the nonsense of thinking that somehow its EITHER the Stones or Sibelius
I want both ................

Some of the Glastonbury things I saw was pants
The Stones were a bit lukewarm IMV (compare this to some of their other gigs on Youtube)
but Johnny Marr was great

[Beef Oven]

I'd rather have Glastonbury than endless football, running about etc etc
It's not as if they would have been showing wall to wall Boulez, Bax or Britten
for once in a long time I actually enjoyed sitting in the front room watching TV last Saturday
something that I would normally avoid like the plague

But what about having the lot? Can't live without MOTD, but want the Stones and Sibelius. Although I think the licence is dear enough, it would be good to at least have an element of pay per view.

[teamsaint]

I'd rather have Glastonbury than endless football, running about etc etc
It's not as if they would have been showing wall to wall Boulez, Bax or Britten
for once in a long time I actually enjoyed sitting in the front room watching TV last Saturday
something that I would normally avoid like the plague

"Front Room?"