Trashing Sublimity- The Heptonstall-Derham problem

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

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.

There is such a thing as tokenism.

[amateur51]

When I worked in the music business (and more generally, the nonprofit sector), time and again I saw organizations flounder and fail because they refused to take an accurate assessment of the current state of affairs and change their fundamental strategy to match the times. Eventually, I was hired by a major US think tank as an assistant research analyst to do analytic research support for a study on this very issue. Here's an excerpt:

THE PERFORMING ARTS IN A NEW ERA

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1367.pdf

.

Which bit were you responsible for, cavatina?

[Serial_Apologist]

Which bit were you responsible for, cavatina?

I was wondering that, after trawling all the way through, AM51. I'm surmising: either cav was reproducing it as an example of the sort of research she was involved in at that institution, or maybe contributing under a pseudonym?

[Anna]

I was wondering that, after trawling all the way through, AM51. I'm surmising: either cav was reproducing it as an example of the sort of research she was involved in at that institution, or maybe contributing under a pseudonym?

Well I'm blowed if I'm going to plough through 166 pages of something emanating from the US which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion here. Can someone remind me what the subject was? Oh yes, I remember it now, Radio 3 presentation wasn't it?

[Serial_Apologist]

Well I'm blowed if I'm going to plough through 166 pages of something emanating from the US which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion here. Can someone remind me what the subject was? Oh yes, I remember it now, Radio 3 presentation wasn't it?

Cavatina requests that we do not do her a discourtesy, so I wasn't.

[Anna]

Cavatina requests that we do not do her a discourtesy, so I wasn't.

Oops, sorry. Slapped wrist for me. <goes off to sulk and think of someone I can do a discourtesy to and get away with it>

[Serial_Apologist]

Oops, sorry. Slapped wrist for me. <goes off to sulk and think of someone I can do a discourtesy to and get away with it>

[VodkaDilc]

"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.

Like Eine Alpensinfonie I am appalled by this. As a younger person, certainly from a less well-off home, in the 1960s and 70s, I went to more concerts, listened to more music, played more music and read more about music than I have at any other time in my life.(And I mean music which might be described as 'classical'.) R3 (or a previous version of it) was a major influence in generating the excitement which exploring music brought to me. I did not consider myself unusual; neither did my many contemporaries who felt the same way. Why does the BBC persist with this nonsense?

(And looking at the next point, about R3 being a little inaccessible and daunting at times, it was the same then. Isn't this all part of stretching the audience's horizons?)

[aeolium]

What's more, the generation growing up now is supposedly much more widely educated than the one in the 60s and 70s - university education having expanded by three or four times from what it was then. And listening to music - any music - is not greatly intellectually challenging in the way that, say, studying string theory might be. I think the BBC persistently underestimates the intelligence of its potential audience and underestimates the demand for quality broadcasting. One has only to look at the success of opera transmissions live to cinema, as described in this article, to see that there is a real audience that the BBC is neglecting (and not only in opera, but also in classic drama, as the NT live-to-cinema project is demonstrating).

[Roslynmuse]

Like Eine Alpensinfonie I am appalled by this. As a younger person, certainly from a less well-off home, in the 1960s and 70s, I went to more concerts, listened to more music, played more music and read more about music than I have at any other time in my life.(And I mean music which might be described as 'classical'.) R3 (or a previous version of it) was a major influence in generating the excitement which exploring music brought to me. I did not consider myself unusual; neither did my many contemporaries who felt the same way. Why does the BBC persist with this nonsense?

(And looking at the next point, about R3 being a little inaccessible and daunting at times, it was the same then. Isn't this all part of stretching the audience's horizons?)

As I've written elsewhere, this was my experience too. Even though there weren't many of us who listened to R3 (or art music) those of us who did weren't worried about being in a minority, even in the family home. I was at a Northern comprehensive school, not much money around, we didn't run a car, have a phone or even a colour television. This was mid to late 70s. Exploring the world of serious music was virtually my way of defining myself. I didn't understand everything I heard, but that was part of the excitement - knowing that there were no limits. We were lucky in having access to a good record and scores library too - how many of those are left? All the more reason for R3 to maintain its standards.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes and let's be a little blunt about this, shall we? Say things that the management assume will never be said because they probably perceive the audience as being, principally, diplomatically inclined and intellectual.

The programmes that they gear towards notions of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion and disability are frequently trumpeted as being important areas of public service which will not be compromised by being made to appeal more broadly. In many respects, I would see this as a good thing.

BUT when it comes to demographics that might show a tendency to appeal to a specific class, the reasoning they apply is precisely the opposite. The fact that this class is then seen as a financially privileged minority is considered utterly diabolical. And that without question reveals nothing more or less than inverted snobbery.

I am neither rich nor posh. Far less so than the decision makers. I can see it as clearly as daylight. And I don't think that cultural manipulation should be used to address overly-approximated distinctions. If people don't like that kind of inequality, tax at source!

I have long held the belief that discrimination in many never disappears. When laws are introduced to protect those most likely to be on the end of discrimination, the less clever and prejudiced ignore them. But the more clever and prejudiced simply shift their discrimination onto other targets. And that is a real problem among the powerful and the influential.

[Serial_Apologist]

And those who speak out in support of the BBC's down-marketing of the Radio 3 they claim to love, in the name of demographic target realignment or whatever, will themselves be deprived. One wonders how far they are prepared to countenance the slide until they wake up?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

When I was at school, I was considered a bit strange because I liked classical music. Nowadays I'd be off the map completely.

[Roslynmuse]

When I was at school, I was considered a bit strange because I liked classical music. Nowadays I'd be off the map completely.

I think that's an unduly pessimistic view. There are still school children/ teenagers who survive their love of music with no harrassment or bullying. What has perhaps changed is that their musical tastes also include all the commercial stuff too. (Self-protection?) Whether they ever listen to R3 is another matter though.

Hmm. I'm thinking of the immensely complex thoughts that lie behind those four horribly generalised sentences and wish I had the time to articulate them more clearly and fully.

[french frank]

I think the BBC persistently underestimates the intelligence of its potential audience and underestimates the demand for quality broadcasting. One has only to look at the success of opera transmissions live to cinema, as described in this article, to see that there is a real audience that the BBC is neglecting (and not only in opera, but also in classic drama, as the NT live-to-cinema project is demonstrating).

And this latest phone-in 'feature' makes one despair. A piece of classical music is being used as an excuse for listeners to phone in and talk about themselves. We know from popular radio stations that people like to do this. And other people like to listen to them. But what on earth has it to do with classical music? And why would people who switch on to listen to such music want the excruciating experience of listening?

In 1973, Radio 3 had a 'phone-in feature'. Radio 3 people didn't like it, listeners didn't like it and the late, great John Lade said that 'the callers had nothing to say: "I remember that piece so well, it was on our honeymoon and we were walking over the Downs ..." ' And that is exactly the kind of thing Radio 3 is inviting people to talk about. I mean, how many opportunities are there elsewhere on the airwaves for such personal reminiscences?