January schedule changes

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The controller's statements often seem to suggest that it's not his fault; that he is being forced to take a particular decision. Yet it was his decision to have a live concert every night - 'for the first time ever' - only a few months ago. That, and live opera, and three weeks of film music are IN; but anything that reeks of seriousness, or in-depth treatment is OUT.

And even if what he said was the strict truth, if I were controller () I would regard the depletion of Radio 3's budget as a resigning matter. The money HAS been there - especially for radio: it has just gone to other services. WHY?

Roger Wright: Alex Hjort or Torben Friis?

[Honoured Guest]

So how do they propose to afford 'every Strauss opera'? ...

As I understand it, this is at the heart of DQF. Core levels of live and specially recorded music have been protected. Everyone including Roger Wright publicly regrets that the new core levels are reduced in quantity but most people surely agree that it was correct to maintain the quality of what remains. So, 'every Strauss opera' can be scheduled in an anniversary year, which also serves as an 'event' which in totality benefits the committed listeners and may be noticed by more general listeners.

Also, regular specialist programming is now established in all music genres. This is in huge contrast to the Radio 3 of the late 20th century, the era of flexible, eccentric, apparently random, scheduling. Now, listeners are accustomed to a consistent scheduled output of Opera on 3, for example, and the Strauss operas can naturally be scheduled in regular opera timeslots.

Paradoxically, these regularly scheduled programmes, which generally serve genres well, lead to disproportionate upset in weeks when they are rested. A recent example was The Early Music Show which was replaced on two consecutive weeks, by a live concert by the BBC Symphony Chorus and Orchestra and by the annual EBU Day of Christmas Music. In the past, when most programming was scheduled very flexibly, on different days and at different times, no one would have noticed if a programme was missing for a week or so.

[french frank]

And, of course, the point he was making about the Cinema Season was that the best way Radio 3 can 'reach out to the widest audience' is by dropping what it usually does and replacing it with content that will be more appealing to wider audiences.

The Trust, au contraire, was asking how the BBC could make 'great music and arts accessible to a wide audience'. Answer: flood Radio 3 with Star Wars, Jaws, Harry Potter theme, Psycho ...

[Honoured Guest]

I find in the Trust review of 2011: ...
As I read that, the Trust is agreeing that Radio 3 is not effective in reaching ALL licence fee payers and that other services within the broadcasting portfolio are 'better placed' - and should do so. That means, in my view, that Radio 3 should not be left to reach all licence fee payers or 'the widest audience' - it should be the joint responsibility of other appropriate services.

Yes, it seems to be saying that the BBC should deliver some classical, jazz and world music on other BBC services, in addition to Radio 3, because there is an overall BBC responsibility to "effectively make this content available and appealing to those audiences which Radio 3 struggles to reach." I presume that one way in which the BBC has addressed this is by its increased, regularly scheduled BBC4 tv Proms broadcasting. Also, the weekly BBC2 Saturday primetime Proms Talk magazine discussion programme which was fairly ghastly but was obviously broadcast there to reach a much wider audience than the equivalent weekly programme broadcast on Radio 3 in previous years. As another example of BBC broadcasting outside Radio 3 to find its audience, I notice that the 2 January edition of Radio 2's weekly The Organist Entertains will consist of a rebroadcast of last summer's Organ Prom.

[Richard Tarleton]

Also, regular specialist programming is now established in all music genres. This is in huge contrast to the Radio 3 of the late 20th century, the era of flexible, eccentric, apparently random, scheduling.

How do you define "late", in this context, HG? With which controller, for example? As a regular listener since the late 60s (I was younger then) I've never thought of the scheduling as eccentric and apparently random. Flexible, possibly.

[french frank]

I presume that one way in which the BBC has addressed this is by its increased, regularly scheduled BBC4 tv Proms broadcasting.

But the Trust also says :

§68 We believe that it is important that Radio 3 continues to attempt to build appreciation of music and culture amongst audiences with little classical music knowledge. Radio 3’s ambition to increase accessibility and encourage lighter listeners will go some way towards achieving this. However, other services within the BBC portfolio should also play a role in meeting this requirement, and are potentially better placed to do so, given their size, scale and broader audience.

I wouldn't have put BBC Four in that category. And BBC Two (which I would) has cut its complete concerts altogether.

Also, the weekly BBC2 Saturday primetime Proms Talk magazine discussion programme which was fairly ghastly but was obviously broadcast there to reach a much wider audience than the equivalent weekly programme broadcast on Radio 3 in previous years.

Doesn't exactly make up for Radio 3 dropping its one programme of musical analysis, though, I wouldn't have thought

As another example of BBC broadcasting outside Radio 3 to find its audience, I notice that the 2 January edition of Radio 2's weekly The Organist Entertains will consist of a rebroadcast of last summer's Organ Prom.

But Radio 2 used to have Your 100 Best Tunes and Melodies for You. Both axed. Your 100 Best Tunes was many people's way into classical music. So I don't really feel that having Radio 3 having more and more 'entry points for new listeners' makes up for losing those large audiences. And it doesn't satisfy those Radio 3 listeners who aren't new listeners.

Frankly, the BBC could do a lot more than it does, but it doesn't want to put anything on its mainstream services at anything like peak times because they're afraid they'll lose audience.

[french frank]

As I understand it, this is at the heart of DQF. Core levels of live and specially recorded music have been protected.

Really? Three years ago Radio 3's commitment to live and specially recorded music was 50% of music output. The cuts reduced that to 40%.

What is odd is that expenditure on the Proms was protected with 'extra investment' but there seems to be no published information as to where that extra investment is coming from, or how much it is. To date, it has come from Radio 3's budget. If that's still the case it just means the money must be spent on the Proms rather than on Radio 3's normal programming: the Radio 3 budget doesn't show signs of extra investment - quite the reverse.

[Honoured Guest]

How do you define "late", in this context, HG? With which controller, for example? As a regular listener since the late 60s (I was younger then) I've never thought of the scheduling as eccentric and apparently random. Flexible, possibly.

Yes, "flexible" is better. I've listened since the early 70s when there were many fewer regular programmes and many of those were erratically scheduled. For example, the regular midweek drama would be scheduled on different days of the week and would start at any time between around 7.00 and 10.30pm. And Michael Charlton presented several fascinating longform current affairs documentary feature series and the individual programmes were broadcast on any day at any time, sometimes scheduled immediately after live concerts which meant that they could be considerably deferred from their advertised time. The advantage of the flexible scheduling was that every programme could take its own form and length, but the disadvantage was that it was impossible to hear much that most appealed unless you had no other life commitments because there was utter advance uncertainty about scheduling.

[Honoured Guest]

Really? Three years ago Radio 3's commitment to live and specially recorded music was 50% of music output. The cuts reduced that to 40%.

Yes, you're quite right. That's a fact. I meant protected at a reduced minimum (or core) level. I did say that everyone regrets that the cuts reduced the quantity.

What is odd is that expenditure on the Proms was protected with 'extra investment' but there seems to be no published information as to where that extra investment is coming from, or how much it is. To date, it has come from Radio 3's budget. If that's still the case it just means the money must be spent on the Proms rather than on Radio 3's normal programming: the Radio 3 budget doesn't show signs of extra investment - quite the reverse.

Yes, "Reinvest in The Proms to maintain (range and) quality" was a DQF BBC management key proposal for Radio 3. As you say, this reinvestment is internal, within Radio 3, and so it could only be achieved by cutting elsewhere in Radio 3. Again, that's a fact. It's a rare example of an explicit priority, which Radio 3 is formally committed to doing, whereas the station apparently had discretion in where it cut in quantity terms, which has turned out to include cutting The Early Music Show by half, for example.

[Barbirollians]

Frankly, the BBC could do a lot more than it does, but it doesn't want to put anything on its mainstream services at anything like peak times because they're afraid they'll lose audience.

Yet that does not stop them putting on Breakfast and Essential Classics which I bet have both lost loads of audience ! Except they no doubt are the elitist wrong kind of audience !

It also baffles me that they do not make better use of their archive - Radio 4 Extra is a whole station devoted to Radio 4 drama and comedy archive .

[french frank]

Yes, "Reinvest in The Proms to maintain (range and) quality" was a DQF BBC management key proposal for Radio 3. As you say, this reinvestment is internal, within Radio 3, and so it could only be achieved by cutting elsewhere in Radio 3. Again, that's a fact. It's a rare example of an explicit priority, which Radio 3 is formally committed to doing, whereas the station apparently had discretion in where it cut in quantity terms, which has turned out to include cutting The Early Music Show by half, for example.

You may be overlooking the fact that the original proposals came, not from the Trust, highly unlikely from the Director General - but, as with the Review proposals - from Radio 3, that means the controller of Radio 3 who happens also to be Director of the Proms. So he gets his money for his Proms and he can cut back on whatever doesn't fit his own strategy for Radio 3.

Many people made the mistake of thinking the Trust's Review of Radio 3 somehow imposed certain commitments on Radio 3: it didn't - the Trust simply endorsed/agreed the proposals from Radio 3 management which were 'what we [at Radio 3] want/intend to do'.

[Tevot]

Yet that does not stop them putting on Breakfast and Essential Classics which I bet have both lost loads of audience ! Except they no doubt are the elitist wrong kind of audience !

It also baffles me that they do not make better use of their archive - Radio 4 Extra is a whole station devoted to Radio 4 drama and comedy archive .

Great point. R3 Management could do much better with its listeners - current and potential. Firstly - treat them with respect

Hey... As it is Christmas Day tomorrow - I suggest we have a game of Footie with R3 Management and the Vienna Philharmonic to show there's no hard feelings

[Honoured Guest]

You may be overlooking the fact that the original proposals came, not from the Trust, highly unlikely from the Director General - but, as with the Review proposals - from Radio 3, that means the controller of Radio 3 who happens also to be Director of the Proms. So he gets his money for his Proms and he can cut back on whatever doesn't fit his own strategy for Radio 3.

Many people made the mistake of thinking the Trust's Review of Radio 3 somehow imposed certain commitments on Radio 3: it didn't - the Trust simply endorsed/agreed the proposals from Radio 3 management which were 'what we [at Radio 3] want/intend to do'.

True, and I don't think I gave my view of this Radio 3 proposal which was adopted by the Trust as a commitment. I simply summarised the facts, as you have also.

I know that Roger Wright proposed that Radio 3 reinvest in The Proms but remember that this was in line with Trust strategy. Similarly, Radio 4 management cut some existing services to reinvest in occasional event programming.

[teamsaint]

Yes, "flexible" is better. I've listened since the early 70s when there were many fewer regular programmes and many of those were erratically scheduled. For example, the regular midweek drama would be scheduled on different days of the week and would start at any time between around 7.00 and 10.30pm. And Michael Charlton presented several fascinating longform current affairs documentary feature series and the individual programmes were broadcast on any day at any time, sometimes scheduled immediately after live concerts which meant that they could be considerably deferred from their advertised time. The advantage of the flexible scheduling was that every programme could take its own form and length, but the disadvantage was that it was impossible to hear much that most appealed unless you had no other life commitments because there was utter advance uncertainty about scheduling.

Well that has reduced considerably as a issue these days, with so many platforms for each programming.
Formulaic programming is , quite unnecessarily , the direction of travel. I'm not sure whose benefit this is for.

[french frank]

I know that Roger Wright proposed that Radio 3 reinvest in The Proms but remember that this was in line with Trust strategy.

That's very interesting. I didn't *know* that - only about the review proposals. I simply inferred the DQF proposals: given the membership of the BBC Executive, it's quite impossible for them to be close enough to individual services to make definite proposals, but it made sense for the Director of the Proms to make out a case for reinvestment in the Proms. What is strategically contradictory is that a case could also be put for retaining quality by reducing the quantity of the ever expanding concerts/events - in line with what Radio 3has done. I'm fairly sure there was at least one DQF submission that suggested that (I think FoR3 responded in that vein - must check).

So we still have the situation where the Director of the Proms won out over the Controller of Radio 3, assuming there was a contest!

Where I do think decisions have been handed down from on high has been in the relative size of the budgets, where the Controller of Radio 3 has not managed to make out a strong case for his service. The BBC is very secretive but the Trust has had to admit that the support for both the Performing Groups and the Proms are disproportionately expensive items of Radio 3's budget. The review said that in 2009/10, 20% of the budget went on the PGs, accounting for only 7% of output. My calculation for the Proms would be similar: the Trust said/revealed that the cost to R3 in 2009/10 was £4.3m which is more than 10% of the budget. Proportionately, it would give almost 900 hours of output, more than 2.5 hours a day for every day of the year. Even with repeats it wouldn't come to that. Ergo, given that Radio 3 is required to support two important BBC brands to that extent, hitting it harder financially than any other network radio station seemed bound to have the kind of results to the rest of the schedule that we have seen lately.

Are the calculations or logic at fault anywhere? They have to be made on the basis of the small scraps of information that we manage to prise out of the BBC