BBC Trust's review of Radio 3

[french frank]

The Trust is publishing its review today. I haven't had time to read it all but the résumé for Radio 3 reads:

"Radio 3’s high quality mix of music and cultural programming is listened to by around two million people each week. Over recent years the BBC Executive has taken steps to make the station more welcoming and accessible in an attempt to attract potential listeners. We endorse this strategy, although this should not be at the cost of the station’s quality and distinctiveness. We recognise that the station’s exploration of a wide range of challenging music means that there will ultimately be a natural limit on its overall audience."

Good and bad. Can we hope that ridiculously inappropriate gimmicks may be abandoned as not being 'distinctive'?

The key point, though, appears to be 'quality': I hope they also address 'seriousness'.

Full review here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/service_reviews/service_licences/reviews_radio_347.shtml).

The last sentence of the paragraph quoted above seems like nonsense. There is certainly not enough 'challenging music' (unless that's a synonym for 'classical music') on Radio 3 to affect the 'natural limit' on the audience. On the contrary, the amount of repetitive, easier listening is steadily increasing, with the apparent aim of expanding the 'natural limit' on the audience.

[James Wonnacott]

Summary: www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/service_licences/service_reviews/radio_347/radio_347_summary.pdf

Full Report: www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/service_licences/service_reviews/radio_347/radio_347_final.pdf

I'm still digesting it:erm:

[Stillhomewardbound]

Oh lorks, here we go again. BBC Trust discovers with much tut tutting that Radio 4 and Radio 3 are too narrow, inaccessible, metropolitan and elitist.

Of course, they'd be very well placed to make that judgement being a generally narrow, inaccessbile, metropolitan and elitist bunch as they are.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/who_we_are/trustees/index.shtml

[Lateralthinking1]

I have only looked so far at the headline points. My feeling is that it could be worse. The R3 summary isn't objectionable. The emphasis on archive is a definite plus but it shouldn't only be current programmes. R4 Extra is the usual nonsense,a no doubt costly bit of "rebranding". Actually, that one is being taken completely in the wrong direction.

The teenagers should be on R1. Family broadcasting should be R2. The younger adult music station should be R6 and the elderly - remember them? - should be R7 - no, sorry, R4 Extra. R3, R4 Actual and R5 should be defined principally by their output and not by age group.

Totally agree with SHB about the Trust only seeing Britain as themselves and "the younger mob". They just don't have a grasp of the range, depth and complexity of the British population outside the boardrooms and the schools. The Trust is one place where one of the thousands with sociology degrees just might be useful but they tend to "disappear".

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It really annoys me when people patronise younger people and assume that they are all sheep and follow peer pressure and the media. There are many who do have a brain, an enquiring mind, etc. Many of them are a lot cleverer than the people who think they know all about them.

[french frank]

One quick point that I spotted: they do agree that the rest of the BBC broadcast channels should carry some of the 'burden' of promoting the arts and classical music. FoR3 made this point clearly, though our idea was that the BBC should shoulder the job of educating an audience which would then be curious to discover more on R3. RW is chairman of the new committee for classical music so I hope he'll have the clout (and inclination!) to get more on the mainstream TV channels.

[maestro267]

However, we accept that, for a small minority of Radio 3’s audience, the changes that have been made to the Radio 3 breakfast and drive-time programmes may not be welcome or appreciated.

And it's that 'small minority' that tend to gather here and vent their frustrations at these changes. Maybe the majority of Radio 3 listeners don't have Internet access, but the message boards seem to be heavily biased toward the 'R3 is dumbing down' side of the argument.

[french frank]

And it's that 'small minority' that tend to gather here and vent their frustrations at these changes.I think it could be otherwise phrased, namely: 'people who gather here tend to vent their frustrations'. That's not to say that the 'small minority (how big/small?) is limited to the people posting here. In fact, we know that people independently say the same.

It all hinges on whether Radio 3 aspires to the heights or stoops to the unremarkable. And that word 'quality' - what does it mean? That someone (who?) ordains that certain material is quality and the rest isn't? And what isn't 'quality' (the proverbial run-of-the-mill 18thc trumpet concerto), doesn't get played, ever?

[I'm merging this thread with the one on Platform 3]

[Lateralthinking1]

I always find these discussions interesting. Just to clarify, when I said that the teenagers should be on R1, I didn't mean all teenagers and the age references I used were a shorthand scene setter. Perhaps less literally age based and more "you are as young or old as you think and feel".

I am always reluctant to get involved in discussions on R3's classical music programmes. I dip in to them but they are not my area of expertise. I know that many on this forum can place them in a historical broadcasting context, have a passion which I admire, and an impressive knowledge of the field. It seems to me that these are the people the BBC should be guided by.

There is a question though. Most appear to support the objective of education and the encouragement of developing interests while not wishing for "dumbing down". That makes absolute sense to me as I access what might appeal to me personally but I find it a bit difficult to follow the signposts. So......how should the BBC square this circle? For me, it is not about the presenters' voices or styles but more about what they say to provide context for the music.

[decantor]

Although I have read only the summary, I trembled at the words "more welcoming and accessible". "Welcoming" seemed to hint at a new presentational style, loaded with jokes and value-judgements (eg. "Gosh! Wasn't that fantastic?" as the presenter's reaction to Op.131): "accessible" appeared to be newspeak for "less high-brow and formal", with no clues whether of style or content. OK, perhaps I should read the whole report.

I wonder if the Trust could be persuaded to glance at the recent Henley report. The national broadcaster (pace Classic FM!) should surely be providing students with a stream of excellence in composition and performance, coupled with informative comment, as part of the inspiration to climb up Henley's pyramid. Such a channel would also come close to satisfying the expectations of the more mature audience, as nothing would be gained by patronising ambitious youngsters.

[french frank]

There are positive points, namely that the BBC is clearly committed to Radio 3, does not require it to increase its ratings and is satisfied that its relatively high cost is 'good value for money'. It does also refer to some of the tensions which result from chasing the 'less knowledgeable listener'. But that is quite clearly the audience they're after. The question is, Why? if Radio 3 isn't supposed to be chasing ratings and the mainstream channels are now being directed to start catering for that same audience?

We know that Trust and Management are the BBC's two different hats but I'm afraid that too much of this reads like BBC management's submission (which I shall be interested to read when it's published) which carries ten times as much weight as all the others (organisations and individual listeners) put together.

Too much repetition of 'high quality and distinctive' as if it's self evident what this means.

[Old Grumpy]

I have just skimmed through the Radio 3 section of the main report. It does not seem that unreasonable to me (once you get past the sociological gobbledygook). As posted elsewhere, I like the approach taken during Breakfast and "drivetime". There is still plenty of in-depth music programming in the remainder of R3's output. The concept of DAB opt-out is interesting. Perhaps we could have a compete opt-out from any future composerthons!

[Lateralthinking1]

There are positive points, namely that the BBC is clearly committed to Radio 3, does not require it to increase its ratings and is satisfied that its relatively high cost is 'good value for money'. It does also refer to some of the tensions which result from chasing the 'less knowledgeable listener'. But that is quite clearly the audience they're after. The question is, Why? if Radio 3 isn't supposed to be chasing ratings and the mainstream channels are now being directed to start catering for that same audience?

We know that Trust and Management are the BBC's two different hats but I'm afraid that too much of this reads like BBC management's submission (which I shall be interested to read when it's published) which carries ten times as much weight as all the others (organisations and individual listeners) put together.

Too much repetition of 'high quality and distinctive' as if it's self evident what this means.

Aw, yes, thanks frenchfrank for pointing out some of the plus points for R3 and for highlighting the clout of management as opposed to those who pay for them all but.........chasing the less knowledgeable listener and why? etc.

- To raise the cultural standards of the country, badly needed.
- To detach good quality from elitism.
- To enable people to start their learning in a sphere comparatively less bucked by market pressures.
- To build audiences by providing contextual information without in any way compromising standards.
- Thereby to make the very existence of the station more justifiable in the eyes of the money-obsessed.

There may be a question here about the assumptions programme makers have about the knowledge of listeners.

- Do those who know a lot feel very annoyed about being given information about music they already know?
- Would they feel less annoyed if it was done at certain times and if at other times the music spoke for itself?
- Would a re-run of what is known by many be acceptable if it involved more opinion from composers, conductors etc?
- Do those who know little but are drawn to the service feel excluded by their lack of knowledge or do they just enjoy it?
- How did those of advancing years begin?

[french frank]

I don't think the real annoyances are about 'being given information about music they already know'. That usually just gets a 'bit disappointing' comment if something doesn't come up to expectations. There's always the next one to look forward to. Like if one week a play isn't to one's taste.

I did get fed up with them constantly using the word 'challenging' as if that's what Radio 3 does now. Name one regular programme that could be described as 'challenging'.

I think Eudaimonia hit on it: most people want radio to be light background listening - and this is what Radio 3 is providing for the new, 'less knowledgeable' listeners. This is where management has clearly brushed aside any objections from RadioCentre/Classic FM, VLV and anyone else who suggested that the station was becoming too populist.

The Audience Councils had some sensible things to say. I'd trust them more than the BBC-led 'qualitative research'. Sample question: Have you learned new things from listening to Radio 3? Erm, yes. Eight out of ten people said they had learned new things, so Radio 3 is fulfilling its commitment to Education and Learning...

[Russ]

I think the poor old BBC Trust struggled mightily in what to say about Radio 3 other than pad the piece out with apple-pie PC phrases. (The Trust always wants all of BBC's channels to appeal to every race, creed, age, and demographic at all times of the day.) What I found lacking was any pan-station commentary about Radios 3, 4 and 7, although I'll accept I'm thinking specifically of the drama content on the three stations.

Incidentally, there is an excellent R3-specific riposte to the Trust's "everything for everyone" approach by Harry Mount in the Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harrymount/100051291/of-course-connoisseurs-listen-to-radio-3/

Russ

P.S. lateral's notion of needing to detach good quality from elitism rings a big bell for me.

[DracoM]

After a slowish trawl:

1. Paras 24-28 reward a closer look. In BBC Trust-speak, they look like a serious whack on the bum to me, reading between the lines. Irritation with and some reservations about R3 Management's will and intentions - or so it seemed to me.

2. Looks evident all the way through that despite having been whacked very hard by every major contributing interest group about the deleterious popularising and accessibility agenda being pursued at R3, there seems to be every intention of going on with it - AT LEAST as far as Breakfast and what they charmingly call drive time shows are concerned, BUT I sensed that there was a distinct coolness about spreading that style and tone further. Thus far and no further seems to be the message? An air of real defensiveness in the writing hereabouts?

3. R3 is condemned as 'elitist'. Sorry, Trust, in the nature of R3's core content, that's what it is. It has to be 'elitist' ONLY because the agenda set by politicians / journalists has termed it such. 'Elitism' implies that what R3 offers is 'the best', accessbile only to the privileged, or the toffee-nosed Oxbridge class etc etc etc. But the defence is surely that that is what those who do not love classical music are intimidated by its image and thus dub it 'elitist' to subvert / downgrade the R3 content. But what R3 offers is merely top quality OF ITS KIND. Many, many other media platforms offer material that is 'top of its kind'. R1 does, 6Music does, tabloid newspapers do - you may not iike them, but they are damned good at what they do. They are 'elitists' in that sense. But is that how they are scoffed at? So are we just talking semantics here that have become overlayed with moral / cultural baggage that is lazy, journalistic short hand? I think it may be and it is a shame that the Trust seems to have accepted that devalued term.

4. Lots of complaints about the low take-up of R3 in 'the north'. At no point do they entertian the idea that what can influence that is that FM / digital coverage in the north of England and Scotland too is in the very nature of some of the terrain, thus digital 'shadows', sparser population densities. Coverage is by no means universal, can be patchy, can be very variable. Areas near me are still fighting to get broadband AT ALL, and satellite / digital coverage is by no means universal. I wonder if others have found this? R3 via medium wave is atrocious, people just give up.

5. Messageboards: : the breathtaking arrogance of the justification and subsequent re-writing of an inconvenient licence over mbs!! Given the work they did on the R3 demographic, did it never occur to the Trust that that particular demographic is the very least likely to use Facebook and Twitter, or have use for podcasts? I wonder if they talked to the CD Review team - arguably the most listened to prog on R3? - about the loss of mb contact? And as FF said, at a stroke, the Trust has re-defined what 'communities of interest' actually means. Communities talk TO EACH OTHER. The axing of mbs killed that at one stroke for users - until this forum stepped in. Astonishing piece of shabby sleight of hand, and of course, deprived the BBC overnight of instant audience feedback, and articulate feedback at that from a demographic to whom words truly matter. Very silly, shallow series of paras in the Review on that.

6. Loved the uncomfortable footnote attempting to tackle of the 'Through the Night' controversy about re-cyling and repeats!

[Paul Sherratt]

Can't stop but yes, that word ' elitist ' is twaddle. People who state that about R3 are really talking about themselves, imo.


(It's like that other horrible self-serving favourite of most bbc managers, ' specialist ' )

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ooops apologies Russ did not spot your link, i'll leave this but only as a reminder to your original two posts up
:doh:


The tired assumption beneath the report is that middle-class/white/southern = bad; working-class/ethnic minority/regional = good. It’s also deeply patronising to, say, a Mozart fan who happens to be a poor, black Mancunian. The idea that high culture has to be made more “welcoming” to appeal to anyone who isn’t middle-class is loaded with inverted snobbery and the worst of dumbed-down values.

It isn’t for the BBC to dictate the demographical breakdown of radio listeners. The only obligation for high-brow institutions like Radio 3 and 4 is to provide the best music and spoken word programmes in the world – excellence will always find discerning listeners, of all races and classes.

Hugo Mount in today's torygraph

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harrymount/100051291/of-course-connoisseurs-listen-to-radio-3/

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes. I am not sure quite how the paying public gets to respond to a report of this kind in any meaningful way? How they enter into a dialogue? Naive questions no doubt. But rather than the "the Trust is all rubbish/ isn't all rubbish" thing and particularly the "is it true what they say/is it not true?" thing, I'd like the public to scrutinise. I get really frustrated sometimes about all the woolly/lazy terms and the fact that there isn't scope to really question them about those.

"The North" - Worries about comparatively low figures in "The North". What? Comparatively low to 1 point something per cent of listeners in "The South"? My God. That must be a really, huge, significant, gap between "The North" and "The South" then!

And it must confirm that absolutely everywhere in "The South" is like Richmond, Yorkshire and leafy Cheshire and everywhere in "The North" is like Hackney and Tower Hamlets. Funny how they aren't but then that's just a little problem about geography. Come on. What is this "The North" and "The South" nonsense?

"Elitism" - Class essentially or wealth or attitude or class plus wealth plus attitude? The contributor who says that the aim of R1 or R2 etc is to be the best at the kinds of things they do, and that too is elitist is spot on. Absolutely, by that definition, it is. As long as they are encouraging of others and not a big or little club, fine. That's quality! The main point is that the notion of elitism as class plus wealth plus attitude is lazy and ridiculous.

ie I have known a fair number of people from "posh" backgrounds who went to Oxbridge. While it may be true that there is a higher percentage of them than other types listening to R3, those are atypical of their backgrounds. Most Oxbridge types work hard in white collar jobs and go home and wind down by watching tripe on the TV. "Strictly", "I'm a Celebrity", "Footballers Wives", etc if the cricket isn't on. There is not a lot of culture in many of them, just as in the rest of the country. They are quite happy to tell you that and, well, no problems.

"Drivetime" - Antediluvian radio term, probably emanating from commercial radio in the early seventies, or the US before it, seen by some as a way of making certain areas of radio more "modern". Ditto "Night Line/Light/Waves, Through the Night, Night on etc. Had this been done at the advent of commercial radio, we would have been hearing pre-war terms there - Capital Wireless, The Cat's Whisker, Brunchtime with Aspel, and Through the Supper with Emperor Rosko and Tommy Vance. Drivetime! Modern? My clarsse!

[french frank]

Yes. I am not sure quite how the paying public gets to respond to a report of this kind in any meaningful way? How they enter into a dialogue? Naive questions no doubt. But rather than the "the Trust is all rubbish/ isn't all rubbish" thing and particularly the "is it true what they say/is it not true?" thing, I'd like the public to scrutinise. I get really frustrated sometimes about all the woolly/lazy terms and the fact that there isn't scope to really question them about those.If there's enough interest in questioning them, it might be arranged.

There will certainly be responses.

[Lateralthinking1]

frenchfrank - Excellent, thanks - Lat. :smiley:

[Stillhomewardbound]

What they deem to be desirable is not doable, in my opinion.

These debates have rumbled on for decades now and the outcome is invariably the same ie. the BBC must be the standard bearer for excellence, but it mustn't put anyone off with any fancy, high falutin' stuff.

Well, how is that particular circle squared?

Another telling sentiment is ... programmes must be made more accessible, but not at the cost of affecting the core audience.

Well, that's entirely the case with the Breakfast programme. It can be said to be reaching more listeners, but it has without doubt alienated many of its core listeners.

It seems churlish to so casually challenge the current culture in a childish chase to create a curate's egg. (That's enough alliteration! Ed.)

[Chris Newman]

Pages 8/9 and 10 of the full report refer to the performing groups of the BBC and live-music:


Radio 3’s support of the BBC’s performing groups accounts for around 20 per cent of its service licence budget but only 7 per cent of its broadcast output. While consultations in the course of this review left us in no doubt of the importance of the performing groups, there are sometimes tensions between their priorities and those of Radio 3, for instance in the types of music covered or the start time of live performances. In the course of this review, BBC management has proposed a review of levels of output from the performing Service Review / BBC Radio 3, BBC Radio 4 & BBC Radio 7 February 2011 10 groups. We welcome this approach and have asked BBC management to also consider whether the objectives of the performance groups can be more closely aligned with the broadcast needs of the BBC, and how performance against these objectives can be monitored


Live music is a key element of the Radio 3 proposition, including performances by the BBC orchestras, BBC singers and events such as the BBC Proms
These are greatly valued by the audience and highlight Radio 3’s commitment to live and specially recorded music, which accounts for 57 per cent of the output.3 This live content also plays an important role in making the station distinctive compared to other classical music providers. Although the BBC orchestras and BBC Proms are very highly appreciated by Radio 3 listeners, evidence suggests that some people who are aware of the BBC orchestras and BBC Proms do not readily associate them with Radio 3.

I was among the 83% questioned who strongly expressed a preference for live-music making (See the Annexes at the end of the BBC Trust Report). At least that is acknowledged though I have my doubts that the powers that be recognise what "live-music making" means. I would like to hear more of the BBC orchestra's concerts being broadcast to justify their connection with R3. Reading the above passages from the report makes me worry whether a threat towards the maintenance of the BBC Orchestras and Bands is tucked into the text.

[french frank]

Well, that's entirely the case with the Breakfast programme. It can be said to be reaching more listeners ...Not with any justification. In the two years before Mo3 was 'rebranded', its highest reach was 839,000. Breakfast (which we are told has a higher Appreciation Index) has hit 819,000 as its best ever. The 'low approvers' are clearly not listening any more!

[Mark Sealey]

May I suggest another way for broadcasters to look at this?

Instead of concentrating on the audience, isn't there a strong argument for some humility, which implies concentrating on what is broadcast; not how to package it and where to direct its appeal?

That then recognises a privilege rightly accorded to (as we used to say) 'a thousand years' of civilisation/culture/music/drama/ideas.

IOW: Demographic Schmemographic - prima la musica.

[DracoM]

Mark

Absolutely, but all the time the Reviews concentrate on the almost exclusively demographic / reach /marketing / PR aspects of the BBC's work, as this last review does almost to the exclusion of anything else, then evaluating / discussion of programme content has to go elsewhere. Like a messageboard which would provide instant feedback. Now that's a good idea: engage their audience in a fast flowing interactive, pretty well instant, community-creating mechanism........I know - Why don't they open a messag.....

........Oh....sorry, forgot............

Hmm.

[french frank]

I've emailed the Trust to ask where we can find BBC management's formal submission (mentioned in the Trust's review, pp 30, 37, 42, 49, 54, 72). First impression is that if any organisation or individual listeners praise the service, that is highlighted; if they criticise, it may be mentioned but they refer back to management and take their point of view. The Trust can of course refer to management anything mentioned by external sources for comment. We weren't allowed to see what management were saying ...

[rank_and_file]

The Service Report summarises its findings as:

"Radio 3 is greatly valued by a relatively small but loyal audience who appreciate its intelligent, thoughtful and committed tone and content. Radio 3 contributes significantly to the BBC’s public purposes through its focus on high-quality classical music and its breadth of output covering jazz, world music, arts and culture. Its continuing challenge is to develop a welcoming and accessible tone while maintaining its core commitment to high-quality and distinctive music and arts programming. "

So everything is wonderful, and the ONLY improvement required is that the announcers develop a welcoming and accessible tone. That’s it - big deal. What a complete and utter waste of time and effort by everybody.

As usual, the BBC forgets what a true public service broadcaster should be doing - and, I suggest, was doing to a degree back in the more gracious Third Programme days. Antony Hopkins wrote in Talking about Music “When you hear a symphony by a great composer you are listening to the thoughts of a major intellect speaking to you in a specialised language.”

This Service Report could be the antithesis!

So, BBC, on with the motley - I now very rarely listen. It's about time FoR3 took the gloves off: you have got nothing to lose, because they aren't listening.

[subcontrabass]

It's about time FoR3 took the gloves off: you have got nothing to lose, because they aren't listening.


One wonders how many members of the BBC Trust (a) listen to Radio 3, and (b) have sufficient knowledge/experience of classical music to make any informed judgement about the current output in Radio 3.

[french frank]

One wonders how many members of the BBC Trust (a) listen to Radio 3, and (b) have sufficient knowledge/experience of classical music to make any informed judgement about the current output in Radio 3.I did wonder what they meant by the 'challenging music' which Radio 3 goes in for and which might keep listening figures low. Did they mean complete works lasting more than 20 minutes? I can't think that there's enough challenging music on often enough and in prime listening slots which could possibly affect ratings.

[DracoM]

Hear, hear!

Every time I switch on, it tends to be a cavalry charge of war horses - nay, more - BITS of war horses eg In Tune.

Where is the challenge? The challenge is more in staying there. I agree that you really do wonder what the Trust actually listened to, or do they take absolutely at face value exactly what RW tells them? Would save them a lot of time of course but somewhat blunt and even possibly invalidate their evaluation?




I know - Memo to self - don't switch on In Tune.

[Stillhomewardbound]

<<the announcers develop a welcoming and accessible tone>>

I can remember the days when the likes of Peter Barker could have been considered a little aloof, though that was the time when continuity notes tended to come straight off the pages of Grove but for the last decade or more Radio 3 con has always been very human, in my opinion.

The problem with notions of 'warmth' and 'accessibility' is that they too easily translate into what I would characterise as 'Blue Peter gush', or one could as easily call it - Classic FM gush.

Without pinching one's nose too severely, the principal domain of Radio 3's output is essentially serious and there has to be an appropriate parity between the announcer and the output.

It's not as if R3 announcers deliberately contrive to be serious.

[vinteuil]

I like serious. I actively dislike what is supposed to be 'welcoming', in the same way that I dislike people who are 'charming'.

[french frank]

I've just heard from the Trust, in response to my enquiry, that BBC management's submission to the review has not been published and 'there are no plans to do so'. All the other submissions and 'supporting evidence' have been published (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/service_reviews/service_licences/reviews_radio_347_supporting.shtml).

Quote from the Trust's endorsement of the DG's strategy review (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2010/december/strategy_review.shtml): 'Setting new standards of openness and transparency'. Given that the Trust's review appears to have drawn heavily on this submission, I've replied that I think this isn't right. Challenging the decision could take years.

[Frances_iom]

BBC management's submission to the review has not been published and 'there are no plans to do so'. All the other submissions and 'supporting evidence' have been published.

what a surprise - did you honestly expect anything else given past BBC behaviour - openess is for others and not Aunty.

[french frank]

what a surprise - did you honestly expect anything else given past BBC behaviour - openess is for others and not Aunty.I've put in an official FOIA request for it to be published or a copy sent to me. They have 20 days to comply or explain why they won't. Watch this space :smiley:

[Suffolkcoastal]

I did wonder what they meant by the 'challenging music' which Radio 3 goes in for and which might keep listening figures low. Did they mean complete works lasting more than 20 minutes? I can't think that there's enough challenging music on often enough and in prime listening slots which could possibly affect ratings.

Well there certainly isn't too much challenging repetoire at the moment on R3. Breakfast is as bad as ever, In Tune not much better, Morning Collection might as well be called 'Extended Breakfast' and now the same old repetoire is even appearing with increasing frequency on TTN.

[rank_and_file]

ff - your #36

Well done.

If they claim commercial confidentiality then you can ask again with any £ amounts redacted. In any event, given that the BBC's Radio 3 channel is not a profit making enterprise, but a public service, and receives its income out of the general licence fee, it is hard to see what is of commercial confidentiality except, perhaps, certain figures not already in the public domain that ClassicFM might find interesting.

It seems completely unfair for the readers that they are unable to see the detailed input/thinking from the other side in order to see if the Report arrives at a balanced conclusion based on all the input.

I wonder if the other people with an interest have asked for the the Radio 3 input?

[antongould]

Well there certainly isn't too much challenging repetoire at the moment on R3. Breakfast is as bad as ever, In Tune not much better, Morning Collection might as well be called 'Extended Breakfast' and now the same old repetoire is even appearing with increasing frequency on TTN.

oh dear S-C
It seems that your 2011 analysis is going to make very sad reading!

[Suffolkcoastal]

The figures for 2011 are going to be affected by that Mozart fest, so all the final figures will be lower, so I'll need to look carefully at proportions and do some projections taking into account the 11 and half days that only Mozart was played. Even this early in the year you can see the patterns emerging composers getting roughly the same proportions as last year, though there seems to be a bit more Vivaldi than normal atm and almost all of the RW warhorses have been given an outing (and some multiple outings) already with one notable exception, shock horror La Valse hasn't been broadcast yet this year! I expect that will be rectified very soon.

[Eudaimonia]

I wonder if the other people with an interest have asked for the the Radio 3 input? I'd be extremely curious to see it, but didn't bother as I'm sure they'll never release such a thing in a million years. They were probably far too candid about sensitive subjects and the editorial decision-making process-- why give your critics more ammunition than you absolutely have to? I mean really: would you want hand over reams of detailed data to a bunch of nosy meddlers trying to stick their fingers in and tell you what to do and how to do it? Er, I can't say that I would. No matter how much I'd love to get my grubby little paws on it from this side of the zoo cage. :biggrin:

Personally, I don't think you don't need twenty days to realise you couldn't get a straight answer out of Aunty if her life depended on it. :erm:

[antongould]

Simon Hoggart from yesterday's Grauniad "BBC Radio should have one aim; to produce a whole variety of top class programmes aimed at people who enjoy top class programmes. If people want to listen they will. It would be ghastly if they started to dismantle the whole superb edifice in order to attract unspecified people who won't listen anyway". His father of course wrote "the book"!