Nach dem Frühstück

[kleines c]

After the breakfast, or even after 'Breakfast', what will happen to BBC Radio 3?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/programmes/schedules

Well, one answer is 'Essential Classics', or even 'CD Review' and 'Sunday Morning' at the weekend, at least according to the schedule, but will anyone, essentially, listen?

'Friends of Radio 3' noted on their website that 'Après Breakfast … '

"… came the deluge of letters to the Times and Sunday Times, a couple of articles in the Telegraph and a taster on Radio 4's Feedback programme for a future edition in which listeners will call the station controller to account for his changes to Radio 3."

http://www.for3.org/news/for3news/for3news.html#Sep.19A

"Après nous le déluge?"

Madame Pompadour is said to have laughed off all the remonstrances of ministers at her extravagance by suggesting, after us, the flood.   As french frank suggests, let the two Rogers, Messieurs Bolton & Wright, know now what you think of the new schedule.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/

Writing in 'The Telegraph', Max Davidson accuses BBC Radio 3 of dumbing down, a familiar refrain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8779255/Dumbed-down-BBC-Radio-3-hits-all-the-wrong-notes.html

Meanwhile in 'The Mail', Brian Sewell explains why Radio 3 is no longer music to his ears, blaming faceless executives at the BBC. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2041810/BRIAN-SEWELL-Why-Radio-3-longer-music-ears.html#ixzz1ZG5143me

There is an argument that Radio 3 still has to find ways of attracting new listeners to the glories of serious culture, but its currently scheduled attempt could well fail, yet again.  It is, in my experience, quite a tricky proposition.  Andy Bloxham reflects that in its long running controversy, Radio 3 has become a testing ground for the argument of exclusivity versus popularity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8735780/Focus-History-of-Radio-3-and-its-controversies.html

So after 'Breakfast', lunch?  Well, 'Breakfast' is neither exclusive nor popular, so its days could be numbered, assuming that the station survives the deluge of complaints from friends, and enemies, of Radio 3.  What will replace it?

"Nach dem Frühstück, das Stück?"

[oliver sudden]

Nach dem Frühstück ist vor dem Brunch.

"exclusivity versus popularity"

I find it hard not to have an attack of the facepalms when I see that formulation or its ilk. Playing 'unpopular' content is the opposite of exclusivity: it enables access. I do wonder what I would be doing today if I hadn't caught the classical bug and I caught it mainly from a radio station that at the time could be relied to play damn good stuff I couldn't otherwise hear. Alas I stopped listening to that radio station well before I left the country it broadcasts to since I felt that something calling itself a classical music station on which the chances of hearing classical music on tuning in at random were comfortably under 50:50 was not doing what it said on the tin.

Although at some point I think it even stopped saying that on the tin. I don't know what it says on the tin nowadays.

Radio 3 is today generally associated with classical music – and its current logo includes a bass clef as part of the number three

If it be churlish to point out that the bass clef is standard equipment not only in classical music but in any music employing notation on the five-line stave then number me among the churls.

[kleines c]

Thank you for your reply, oliver sudden.  I should clarify that I do not consider you to be a churl in Cologne.  As for 'Breakfast', all I can suggest is that BBC Radio 3 attempts to broadcast more intelligently.

[kleines c]

Greetings from kleines c.  I should report that I sent this particular topic to Roger Wright prior to his appearance on BBC Radio 4's 'Feedback', and Roger, in turn, privately acknowledged some of the concerns.  I also noted Sarah Spilsbury's thought-provoking blog in 'The Guardian', which simon howard posted in a parallel thread:

http://www.r3ok.com/index.php/topic,3467.0.html

As expected, 'Feedback' was something of an anticlimax, but if you, like me, missed the programme, 'Friends of Radio 3' provides the following transcript of a rather less than 'Artful Dodger':

Q. … there’s a relatively small number of people in this country who like serious music why alienate a lot of existing perhaps rather conservative listeners, why not just make them happy and be happy with that relatively small number?

RW. We’ve never said that the number listening to Radio 3 is a small number.

Q. But what you said in terms of the Proms is what the figures demonstrate is that your strategy has been successful, you’ve never had as many people listening, the attendance figures are up higher than ever. So obviously that strategy is justified. If you apply the same however criteria to looking at the figures for Radio 3 there isn’t that increase. So on the one hand you’re justifying what you’re doing by an increase in audience and on the other you’re justifying what you’re doing even though there hasn’t been an increase in audience.

RW. How many emails have you received?

Q. “All my life I’ve worked while listening to Radio 3. The music was new, it stretched me, I learned things, the talk was knowledgeable. Now I find myself switching off in despair.” She may be wrong but she has that impression is genuinely held and it’s reflected in a number of the emails we’ve got. Why, why have they got that impression if you say there is no evidence to support it?

RW. “What a perfect line-up of presenters for the morning sessions. The alarm goes off at 6.30, we’re greeted by Petroc Trelawny’s wonderful vocal tones. Bliss! Not only that but his brilliant choice of music has made getting up in the morning so much more pleasurable.”

Q. On interactivity: "Where did the demand come from?” “Do you not understand that you’re alienating what used to be Radio 3’s core audience? ‘Kevin has texted to say how much he enjoyed the last piece...’” Why is that important? What does it add?

RW. Well, you know, I hear all of those comments, but it’s also, of course, true to say, that the listeners themselves are wanting to have some level of interactivity although obviously we’ve got to select quite carefully.

Q. Some people do think that there is much more news on Radio 3 … So any plans to reduce the amount of news?

RW. Well, we have actually, and all we’ve done is exactly what we have been doing which is to give a 15-second look at the news either from the papers or a quick news headline. We share a lot of our listeners with Radio 4. What’s very important is just to give them when they come to Radio 3, to give them a sense if there something they would actually want to develop further on Radio 4 on 5Live on a BBC local radio service, then they can go elsewhere and get that news.

Now here we have an answer:

RW. … there’s a balance to be struck which the Trust recognised which is about the station doing what it can to appeal to new and lighter listeners and at the same time maintaining its distinctive, some would say unique, output.

To which the Question is: so much for appealing to the ‘new and lighter’ listeners – how about engaging with longer-standing, more serious listeners who are clearly unhappy instead of pretending they don’t exist?

http://www.for3.org/news/for3news/for3news.html#Oct11No

Roger also wrote about the cutbacks on the Radio 3 Blog, and some of the comments below his entry are quite interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio3/2011/10/controller-roger-wright-on-the.shtml

There is, I suspect, more to come.

[kleines c]

"Spätstück, kleines c?"

[marbleflugel]

Interestingly Bolton doesnt follow up the paradox of what Wright was saying about listening figures. It's an in-house job perhaps but also it indictaes that arguably disempowering (for presenters and audience) cultural conditioning is taking place, which you find across radio in general (with the signal exception of GMG and specifically Jazz FM, which knows a lot about  the authentic needs of its constituency and genres).I believe DAB / Online offers more precise ways of measuring listenership (Bryn and co may know more about the technology deployed) . Historically selective sampling from 'Sid and Doris Bonkers' in the street was the preferred method. I have weighed in a bit on facebook with the argument about the future of local radio- its strikes me that what's being attempted with the 'interactivity' is to render R3 as a sort of pan-local station for classical music , while narrowing the definition of what that is in terms of its peak time playlist (this is the big difference from when Rob Cowan was doing Breakfast).

[martle]

(this is the big difference from when Rob Cowan was doing Breakfast).

Wait. Has RC now stopped doing breakfast? I mean [The] Breakfast [Show]?

[Morticia]

Martle Martle, do pay attention. Rob has now been moved to Essential Classics just after Breakfast (anyone correct me if I'm wrong ) and Pet Rock and SMP are now 'serving' Breakfast.

[kleines c]

If I may address your question directly:

"Spätstück, kleines c?"

We'll give it a miss, although thank you very much indeed for the suggestion.  According to today's 'Guardian', plenty of listeners are giving BBC Radio 3 a miss, too, as predicted by some kind of 'Rajar Rite' after 'Breakfast'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/27/radio-3-biggest-audience-fall

I guess that if no one listens, Radio 3 (R3) will no longer exist?  I can confirm that you are quite right about the presenters Rob Cowan, Petroc Trelawny and Sara Mohr-Pietsch, Morticia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/features/programmes/presenters/cowan-rob.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/features/programmes/presenters/trelawny-petroc.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/features/programmes/presenters/mohr-pietsch-sara.shtml

Your interactive 'pan-local station for classical music' is in search of a listener, marbleflugel.

[marbleflugel]

I wonder, Kleines, if that isn't the result the cut-happy panjandrums are hoping for

[kleines c]

If I may address your point directly, marbleflugel:

I wonder, Kleines, if that isn't the result the cut-happy panjandrums are hoping for

It certainly remains to be seen.

http://www.for3.org/news/for3news/for3news.html#Oct27Sk

Radio 3 is relatively expensive in terms of cost per listener, and if you want an interactive pan-local station for classical music, Classic FM already fits the bill.  So your cut-happy panjandrums could cut public subsidy from Radio 3 completely, marbleflugel, arguing that commercial radio just does it so much better.  On reflection, I sense that this would be something of a tragedy.