Trashing Sublimity- The Heptonstall-Derham problem

[Serial_Apologist]

If cavatina really thinks the BBC is being "daring" in the changes it is making, she must't be surprised if, a few years, months, weeks down the line, when back in America, she finds little or nothing worth listening to on Radio 3. And that would be a shame, wouldn't it?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i do not mind repetition .... R3 is following AUNT in marketing and accessibility policies established by Thompson and his cronies [and predecessors to some extent, but the marketing initiative is clearly Thompson's] Woger Minimus is simply following the line of Napoleon and Squealer

i do recommend Gordon Torr's book pp 235 et seq especially, tho alas they are not in the google preview ...

to repeat myself Thompson must go ....

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I don't think we should go down the road of national stereotypes. How many of us in this country would regard ourselves as "stiff-upper-lip"? But that is a traditional British stereotype. Americans are often portrayed as brash, and although one of our US contributors appears to fit this description, there are actually many more, who post from the USA during the night, who show great humility and thoughtfulness. I think of Marthe and Estelle with great respect.

If American-baiting fills you with you with relish, stick to their dumbed-down spellings - textspeak before its time.

[doversoul1]

I don't think we should go down the road of national stereotypes. How many of us in this country would regard ourselves as "stiff-upper-lip"? But that is a traditional British stereotype. Americans are often portrayed as brash, and although one of our US contributors appears to fit this description, there are actually many more, who post from the USA during the night, who show great humility and thoughtfulness. I think of Marthe and Estelle with great respect.

If American-baiting fills you with you with relish, stick to their dumbed-down spellings - textspeak before its time.

Calm down E-A
Nobody is bashing any nationality. If you are referring to my post, I was merely pointing out to the poster that s/he had no need to insist that s/he was not what s/he was. If this makes sense.

Rereading your post, now, what are you actually saying?

[Lateralthinking1]

Nationality aside, I think they do have a strategy but like most things it is half-baked. Maybe at the next meeting, french frank could ask them to provide a profile of who they imagine to be the less typical Radio 3 listener, ie one who hasn't been tuned in to it necessarily for decades. Is this a young person, for example? If so, whatever happened to the notion of a university for the third age?

A good part of the way I have always defined my identity is as a teacher and a learner. I believe that both are lifelong processes. This may be rare but I don't think so. At 48, I want to learn more and I will be the same if I get to 78. So it may be for people of my age who have been playing in orchestras since the age of 6. They have different needs and these should be provided as they ask but what those in charge might think I want is not necessarily the case. Maybe they aren't bothered.

For example, while I may not immediately recognise every piece of music by Mozart, I am not at "my angle" because I have been won over from Classic FM. I have hardly ever listened to the station. I am ostensibly a BBC bloke. I was in choirs when a youngster, I have been to several concerts, classical music has been there or thereabouts in my life from a wide range of different sources. But not from CFM.

Nor do I ever arrive with a preference for an easy listening presenter style. We spoke about Robert Robinson a while back. There are numerous others one might mention who had or have seriousness, depth and wit. Those are the people I would choose irrespective of my interest in and knowledge of more popular forms. Horses for courses. The best in their field etc.

I also don't want programmes to be designed especially with people like me in mind. They will get it wrong if they try. In fact, they do. Even musically, you can see them thinking - "Ah yes, the Beatles, Bob Dylan - try him on a little Beethoven or Tchaikovsky".

No thanks - Copland, Glass, Reich, Vaughan Williams, Grainger, Crosse, Elgar, Holst, Delius, Lambert, Faure, Satie, Chopin, Debussy, Saint-Saens, Rodrigo, Puccini, Verdi, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Rimsky-Korsakov, Dvorak, Gorecki, Part, Sibelius, Grieg, Orff......those would be my starting framework. Knowledge of all somewhat narrow. With someone else, it would be entirely different.

And I am not a fan either of constant change just for the sake of it. The part of the FoR3 website that refers to the five and ten yearly cycles of "change it and then back again" is spot on. These people are being paid huge amounts to be like kids with a brand new Christmas present. Full of it and then suddenly bored.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Calm down E-A
Nobody is bashing any nationality. If you are referring to my post, I was merely pointing out to the poster that s/he had no need to insist that s/he was not what s/he was. If this makes sense.

It wasn't any particular post I was referring to. I just thought that Cavatina's nationality was become too much of an issue, rather than the argument itself. I wouldn't want anyone pilloried for the wrong reasons.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes entirely reasonable. Actually, it has just dawned on me that the current process, like almost everything else I encounter these days, is entirely in reverse to the way I think and feel. That is how wrong it is to me. I have had a concept of Reith for as long as I can recall. A bit vague but I know what it stands for. I apply that idea to every DJ I listen to - is there something of a broadcasting standard here? Does this DJ offer something of a standard above the current norm?

I think you would find in "popular" music circles more of that ethic than many might imagine. The words "George" and "Lamb" spring to mind here. So actually what is being sold to those who only love classical music is a version of popular entertainment - admittedly probably the one favoured by the majority, the one of the zeitgeist - and you are being hoodwinked into believing that it is the only one. It isn't and it rather sickens me to see "serious" music presentation dragged down in that way.

[french frank]

I just thought that Cavatina's nationality was become too much of an issue, rather than the argument itself.

However, looking back at the context (Msg #60) in which it was introduced, it was part of the argument.

C: They have yet to do a classical music edition of "Snog, Marry, Avoid", so I'm not too worried

FF: Well, one always has to wonder why you, a New Yorker, would need to be worried about what a British radio station does anyway

In other words, I felt Cavatina was giving undue significance to the fact that she, personally, wasn't bothered about Radio 3 going downmarket (and I used 'New Yorker', as I said, as emphasising domicile rather than nationality. That is part of the argument because when she suggests that I am putting 'ideals before reality', I would to a certain extent agree. I see the whole argument - which is the age-old argument about the Third/R3 - as being one of principles and ideals, rather than personal taste or personal interest.

I condemn the BBC because they never produce any arguments to support their course of action. In fact, what they say is often completely contradictory to what they do. We are not dumbing down; we are making R3 more accessible. We are not chasing ratings; we are reaching out to a broader audience (in spite of the fact that we recognise that classical music is a minority interest).

"To some extent, the performance of Radio 3 amongst different demographic groups reflects a difference in taste. For instance, younger audiences and those from less well-off households are more likely to be interested in other types of music." BBC Trust review.

"The evidence gathered in our review suggested that some audiences perceive Radio 3 to be a little inaccessible and daunting at times." Letter from BBC Trust.

So we're going all out, gung-ho, with phone-ins, celebrities, comedy features and quizzes, no unnecessary information &c &c. to go as downmarket as we dare in order to lure in anyone and everyone ... . I don't think that's what the Trust was saying publicly - though we don't know what is said behind the scenes because it's classified information which - wait for it - would limit their 'freedom of expression' to have to publish.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

doubleplusunthinkdoublethinkdoubleplusungoodthinkc rimeinnit

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't think that's what the Trust was saying publicly - though we don't know what is said behind the scenes because it's classified information which - wait for it - would limit their 'freedom of expression' to have to publish.

Covered by the Official Secrets Act? - or... maybe..... *commercial* secrecy?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

.
"To some extent, the performance of Radio 3 amongst different demographic groups reflects a difference in taste. For instance, younger audiences and those from less well-off households are more likely to be interested in other types of music." BBC Trust review.

That last statement really gets up my nose. The only reason "younger audiences and those from less well-off households are more likely to be interested in other types of music" is that that is the rubbish they are fed by TV channels, radio stations and even schools.

[Lateralthinking1]

Let's face it.....most of those in charge feel that they were never quite as cool as they wanted to be; reach out from their greying towers to capture a notion of youth before it is too late; and because they never "got the youth thing" in the first place see it as residing in the most depressing and non-vibrant current versions one could find.

And then they tell everyone that they have just got to "get" with the times!

Some move forwards. Some move backwards. Some do both and yet neither at the same time. The latter almost certainly accounts for the cyclical nature of it all. Just as one fellow begins to see any sense, he moves on to be replaced by another of exactly the same type.

I am guessing the next one will be carrying some lifelong wound about having to stay indoors and study maths rather than going to see the Stone Roses. The one after that will be precisely the same except it will be The Prodigy.

I suggest rather than telling them that they are dumbing down - they love that accusation - it would be best to point out their limitations in respect of youthful coolness. Get a streetwise kid to do a quiz and ask them the questions. When it is 0 out of 10, I suspect that a more traditional form of Radio 3 will miraculously appear. But sadly they may require counselling.

[french frank]

Covered by the Official Secrets Act? - or... maybe..... *commercial* secrecy?

Not covered by the Freedom of Information Act as it comes within the BBC's 'derogation' - the exemption given to certain kinds of information.

"The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature’. The BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.

"One of the main policy drivers behind the limited application of the Act to public service broadcasters was to protect freedom of expression and the rights of the media under Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The BBC, as a media organisation, is under a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest and the importance of this function has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights. Maintaining our editorial independence is a crucial factor in enabling the media to fulfil this function."

Erm, all matters of public interest? But it is a matter of public interest if the BBC seeks to change the remit of a service. It should have to explain what it is doing and why. I don't see how it affects editorial independence to explain what you're doing and why. But that's just me

[Serial_Apologist]

Not just you, French frank - the abovequoted just doesn't add up, however one tries.

On a related matter, I see in the latest Radio Times that there is an item titled "Stand up for BBC4" by David Butcher (P. 43) "taking to task" the BBC for its plans to de-gut the channel - if that's not too strong a word. "It's time to stop the heart being cut out of our best-loved channel ...". "Hearing that BBC4 is under threat is like hearing that your local library is closing". I could quote more, but what he writes applies directly, and for precisely the same reasons, to Radio 3 and what is being done to it.

We could do with a page like that on behalf of Radio 3 in Radio Times.

[BudgieJane]

If they were really dumbing down, they'd stop commissioning new music that hardly anybody (comparatively, out of the whole UK population) wants to listen to.